Charles Darwin's theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology. In fact, Rampino notes that a more accurate theory of gradual evolution, positing that long periods of evolutionary stability are disrupted by catastrophic mass extinctions of life, was put forth by Scottish horticulturalist Patrick Matthew prior to Darwin's published work on the topic.

"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."

Matthew (1790-1874), Rampino notes, published a statement of the law of natural selection in a little-read Appendix to his 1831 book Naval Timber and Arboriculture. Even though both Darwin and his colleague Alfred Russel Wallace acknowledged that Matthew was the first to put forth the theory of natural selection, historians have attributed the unveiling of the theory to Darwin and Wallace. Darwin's notebooks show that he arrived at the idea in 1838, and he composed an essay on natural selection as early as 1842years after Matthew's work appeared. Darwin and Wallace's theory was formally presented in 1858 at a science society meeting in London. Darwin's Origin of Species appeared a year later.

In the Appendix of Naval Timber and Arboriculture, Matthew described the theory of natural selection in a way that Darwin later echoed: "There is a natural law universal in nature, tending to render every reproductive being the best possibly suited to its condition As the field of existence is limited and pre-occupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to circumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity "

However, in explaining the forces that influenced this process, Matthew saw catastrophic events as a prime factor, maintaining that mass extinctions were crucial to the process of evolution: "...all living things must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life... these remnants, in the course of time moulding and accommodating ... to the change in circumstances."

When Darwin published his Origin of Species nearly three decades later, he explicitly rejected the role of catastrophic change in natural selection: "The old notion of all the inhabitants of the Earth having been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods is very generally given up," he wrote. Instead, Darwin outlined a theory of evolution based on the ongoing struggle for survival among individuals within populations of existing species. This process of natural selection, he argued, should lead to gradual changes in the characteristics of surviving organisms.

However, as Rampino notes, geological history is now commonly understood to be marked by long periods of stability punctuated by major ecological changes that occur both episodically and rapidly, casting doubt on Darwin's theory that "most evolutionary change was accomplished very gradually by competition between organisms and by becoming better adapted to a relatively stable environment."

"Matthew's contribution was largely ignored at the time, and, with few exceptions, generally merits only a footnote in modern discussions of the discovery of natural selection," Rampino concludes. "Others have said that Matthew's thesis was published in too obscure a place to be noticed by the scientific community, or that the idea was so far ahead of its time that it could not be connected to generally accepted knowledge. As a result, his discovery was consigned to the dustbin of premature and unappreciated scientific ideas."

Mendel solved the logic of inheritance in his monastery garden with no more technology than Darwin had in his garden at Down House. So why couldn't Darwin have done it too? A Journal of Biology article argues that Darwin's ...

Although Charles Darwin is most well-known for his book On the Origin of Species, in which he described the process of natural selection, he greatly contributed to many specific fields within biology. As the bicentennial ...

The long-held view that Charles Darwin avoided publishing his theory of evolution for 20 years because he was afraid of the reaction it would provoke is being rebutted as a myth by a Cambridge University academic.

Thanks to photos and films featuring clouds of stunning orange and black monarch butterflies flying across North America, many people today are familiar with how monarchs migrate. The migration patterns of other insects, ...

Around 4 billion years ago there lived a microbe called LUCA: the Last Universal Common Ancestor. There is evidence that it could have lived a somewhat 'alien' lifestyle, hidden away deep underground in iron-sulfur rich hydrothermal ...

In 2003, the Human Genome Project revealed to the world the three billion chemical units within human DNA. Since that time, scientists have designed many ways to organize and assess this overwhelmingly large amount of information. ...

The ability to smell is critical for salmon. They depend on scent to avoid predators, sniff out prey and find their way home at the end of their lives when they return to the streams where they hatched to spawn and die.

Agree with Bartolo, thought this was common knowledge although I'm a bit surprised by Darwin's stance. It seems reasonable that mass extinctions would be associated with higher selective pressures and would result in more radical changes. The process should still continue during more stable periods at a slower rate.

I suspect what he is trying to say is that during relatively stable periods there is a disincentive for the new species to develop - an uphill struggle against the well-established ones. So it pretty much requires a major upheaval to result in something of note happening to the species.

This would indeed appear to contradict standard Darwinian model of gradulal accumulation of tiny changes. At least that's how I read it.

I am with you, "is this new"???"Darwin's stance" was the start . . it was also simplistic and incomplete but the beginning. Which of course is common of all first breakthroughs in science. The Original idea was found to be valid but as always the subject is more complicated then anyone ever thought so added to and modified.This is no different the Newton's law of gravity. Technically the it is "wrong" and simplistic from our current point of view but gets the idea across and also works just fine in a small frame of reference.In both cases science did what it is suppose to do and tested the original idea. And what was found was greater understanding and complexity to expand into. . and the process has not stopped.Darwin at the time did not have the information TO make a credible stance on catastrophic change. And it must be remembered that he was ALSO fighting creationists the whole way. This may have biased him on the subject a bit.

As I recall from a course of evolutionary history in college, Darwin was far from the first to posit evolution. His contribution was to write an extensive book containing a very detailed theory, an exhaustive sampling of evidence supporting it, and arguments against the creationists of his day.

If you have read "Origins of Species" you'll see it is still incredibly accurate, as the only major omission was an understanding of genetics and the inheritance of alleles (although he was pretty close to finding it). The book changed the world, at least for biologists, and that is why Darwin is best known among those who simultaneously came up with the idea.

Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement of that theory, although you must understand that evolution speeding up after a mass extinction still requires millions of years, as Darwin noted. Evolution also slows down, via the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, but it's impossible for it to just stop altogether.

Evolution is driven by a changing environment. Lots of species can't adapt and go extinct. Other species that do survive and can adapt do it quickly their own way to fill the niches.Of course there's evolution in between periods of massive change and extinctions, but those are to micro-adjust and due to species struggling for the same niche, or just random mutations without a cause (through gene-flow etc.)Evolution is always happening, some periods it just happens faster than others because the environment drives it and/or allows it.But humans didn't evolve from the last common ancestor with the apes and birds didn't evolve from the dinos because of mass extinctions. They evolved because the environment allowed it or to fill a niche that wasn't already filled.

I think it is much more likely that it isn't just mass extinctions that cause evolutionary surges. Niches can be carved out by a new and better mutation or species that displace an indigenous one. We see that happening all the time now by invasive species in the US.

In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

I'm doing a paper on fast vs. slow human evolution. The (few) authors I have come across regarding this subject often mention the number of people as a driving factor for faster evolution. This seems plausible to me considering more people equals more variation. And more variation equals a better chance that a beneficial adaption will turn up and spread. Most people mention reproduction, selection pressures and variation as the foundation of evolution On a side note: After The Origin of Species Darwin mostly worked on sexual selection. Many people, wrongly, consider it a sub-topic in natural selection. Actually they are autonomous selection pressures. Where natural selection only worries about survival.

Sexual selection worries about reproduction. Where natural selection solves problems effectively, sexual selection does some, seemingly wasteful things (for instance, the peacocks tail). Anyway, I'll cut to the chase: sexual selection works faster than natural selection due to positive feedback. For instance, when a woman chooses a feature in a man, the desire for that feature lives on in the womans daughter. Thereby accelerating the change. The best book I've read on this, underestimated, topic is "The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller".

Yes, I should have said that mutations/reproduction is the engine driving evolution and changing environments (e.g. invasive species and sexual selection, and don't forget viruses and bacterial infections) are the steering wheel.But sexual selection or invasive species are not main cause of fast evolution.When looking at the fossil record, the fastest evolutions always occur when many species go extinct at about the same time, caused by large-scale geological/climatological phenomena. Be glad this is the case, otherwise we wouldn't be here to ponder about it.And us humans are causing one of the largest mass extinctions ever recorded, so if we as a species survive, we can study punctuated equilibrium in action.

The (few) authors I have come across regarding this subject often mention the number of people as a driving factor for faster evolution. This seems plausible to me considering more people equals more variation.

Actually, it's the opposite. The fewer individuals in an isolated group, the faster will the group evolve. That's because every mutation has a better chance of quickly spreading to a significant fraction of the population. In large groups, a mutation can only really become widespread if it provides significant benefit to survival or reproduction. Mutations that are mostly neutral will be relegated to the vagaries of genetic drift, and will tend to be homogenized out of existence, because at each mating there's only a roughly 50% chance of passing the mutation on, and in a large group the odds of two mutants mating are low.

PinkElephant is right. Evolution of the human species has more or less come to a stand-still because of we're in such large numbers living relatively close to each other and all our traveling and intermingling habits don't support fast evolution either.

Isn't this strong evidence evolution proceeds not so much from competition than the ABSENCE of competition; that competition in a large and varied already established ecosystem tends to reinforce the system's biological stability by inhibiting precisely the sort of biological innovations which might lead to a new type of ecosystem superseding it and its component elements?

actually it is not so much competition or the lack of it that leads to evolutionary changes. Evolution happens all the time in the sense of variation on a theme. In smaller populations regardless of competition those variations can magnify through reinforcement simply due to statistics.

In a small population of 20 individuals a single change will result in 5% of the population being different and should that individual survive and breed then there is still a significant proportion of the population with that inherited trait.

If the individual has 5 offspring and each offspring inherits some part of that trait then we have significant change in total population.

The researcher and Patrick Matthew does not state where the original material and DNA information comes from. They only state that it got changed through natural selection. There is a catastrophe that wiped out all but 8 of the human population and left a small population of all KINDs of animals and birds for replenishing of earth - the world-wide flood. In part-agreement with Pink_elephant, it's this SMALL population that already contained the required information that created the kind of diversity we see today. Plants and fish/sea creatures survived the world-wide flood but the rest of the animals and humans did not.This is a much better explanation for what we see today rather than the apriori non-created evolutionistic thought pattern that currently prevails.Molecules-to-man kind of evolution is just a fairy-tale since it does not explain how the INFORMATION got into the DNA. If someone can perhaps give a plausible explanation that accounts for that information content, ....

I might be inclined to give evolution a second thought. But as it stands, there's no known random physical process that can generate that kind of information. There just isn't. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that such a process exists.

For another example look at astronauts in space. With no gravity to contend with muscle atrophy takes place physiologically changing the person. Does this count as evolution, adapting to a low gravity environment? Of course it does.

That is NOT EVOLUTION. Sorry to cut you off there, but you are plainly wrong.

It works as stroke engine. First one gain some advantage and start to spread, increase in numbers. It do not matter happen it because of some competitive advantage or because competitors are just gone extinct. As numbers go up the probability that mutations happen will also go up. Advantageous or not they will accumulate and mix, as there is no much pressure then no actual selection happens in this phase. Humans are currently in this phase. Then space to spread ends, this is the upper dead zone. Pressure increases a bit, but it just stabilize the situation. Nothing new happens in this phase, even if it it takes really long, long time, just mutations continue to happen and accumulate and mix.

Then pressure phase starts. Population faces serious competition or environment change and start rapidly decrease in numbers. This is the selection phase, only fittest for new hostile conditions survive. Population also gets divided into isolated parts. Some of these parts die out, sometimes all die out, but some may become new species who are well adapted for new conditions. They benefit from mutations that accumulate and mix during long, long time and therefore the development can be really fast, much faster then mutations can actually happen. Now the process repeats, new well adapted species can rapidly spread. And global catastrophes drive this cycle of course, other way it tend to get stack in dead zone.

You got four gear car. Switching gears allow to adapt to different driving conditions, but it is not development. Development would be if it grow a fifth gear, but that cars do not do. All species have some gears they can switch, but only stupid will mix that with development, switching gears do not change the capabilities individual carry.

If the inflation phase was really big it may be enough to encounter the limit to felt like catastrophe and initiate pressure phase. It is how diversity was built after really big natural catastrophes probably, it can make several iterations in short time. Humans are entering limiting phase currently and the inflation before it was a big one, things may become interesting already on our lifetime...

Whatever Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands, in two trips there, staying for two months at a time, could not have been the slow Darwinian evolution postulated by many. Darwin drew varied shapes of bird beaks to claim there were evolutionary changes. But this would be evidence of epigenetics, fast gene switching, not the slow gene mutations that take many generations to occur. The discovery of epigenetics negates Darwin's theory. New species do not arise out of rapid changes in gene expression either. There is variation and adaptation, but not new species. That Darwin's theory has made it into this century suggests mankind clings to archaic ideas. Epigenetics was discovered in the 1970s but kept from view because of its opposition to Darwinian biology.

bsardi,epigenetics is not evolution as it only works on the phenotypical and not on the genotypical level. It was not studied because they didn't know how to.

kevinrtrs,The initial 'creation' of information until the first common ancestor was formed is not biological evolution, but is studied by a science called 'the origins of life'. They're working hard to figure out how this could have happened and have had good success. Like how to create RNA (the parent of DNA) from simple chemicals through a pretty simple process. As soon as there was such a molecule it was just a matter of time for it to develop mechanism to ensure its survival.This was published just yesterday: http://www.nature...590.html

But as it stands, there's no known random physical process that can generate that kind of information. There just isn't. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that such a process exists.

Why do you pretend that anyone claimed there was such a thing as a random process creating information? I can't accept a challenge to defend a Straw Man BUT I CAN show how information increases.

Done it lots times here. Bet YOU have seen it before.

MUTATIONS are random. SELECTION is NOT random.

Information comes from the environment via natural selection. The process of selection is in no way random.

Another way to think of it is as if random mutations created a block of marble and then INFORMATION was scribed into the random block by the selective pressures of the environment. This is not at all hard to understand. Only a religious belief is standing in the way of your comprehending this.

Skeptic_Heretic, I'm new here, but I've been debating with creationists for years. Though some, to their best knowledge (which is nearing 0), still claim evolution to work through Lamarckian mechanisms but they normally attempt to ridicule "evilutionists" for their stupidity to buy into that. I can't remember having met someone creating his own evidence on this premise. That's even more ignorant than just parroting your preacher or creationist websites full of strawmen.And yes, if someone claims that when someone "explodes" in a vacuum this would represent an example of evolution, or weird examples alike, this is the most ignorant I've ever seen.

Skeptic_Heretic, I'm new here, but I've been debating with creationists for years.

Then you didn't check my profile. Physorg is underseige from misologist apprentices attempting ot become the next Hovind or Hamm. There's a listing in my profile of some of the more outspoken ones.

And yes, if someone claims that when someone "explodes" in a vacuum this would represent an example of evolution, or weird examples alike, this is the most ignorant I've ever seen.

My favorite is when they tell me that all the kinds were established at the beginning. Which kind is a trilobite? Where are the pre-cambrian rabbits and foxes? Why can't a lycan pictus breed with a grey wolf? etc, etc, etc.

They don't recognize that evolution answers these while they holler and jump when a biology student says "I don't know yet".

In order to understand 'evolutionary shaping' or, phenotype variation, one has to know 'where' and 'what' is the phenomena that imbibes 'life' in atoms and, what communicative 'language' the fundamental particles work to. Enter 'Quantum Biology' and the weird phenomena of of the 'invisible'. We can only infer this worl yet, it's the 'lifeblood' of all living entities. 'Evolution' is nothing more than the influence of time on the physical manifestation of the phenomena of life expressed as a combination of trillions of atoms. Whether 'catastrophic' events happen or not, the entity or, 'force' that instils 'life' will continue because, it's part of the Quantum Biosphere.

Or: why can't a donkey and a horse produce offspring that can reproduce again?They just claim that "kind" has a different definition than "species", but fail to come up with one.It takes a lot more courage and humility to say "I don't know" then to blame the supernatural.Much of modern beliefs are based on "the god of gaps". The biggest problem however is that many folks just don't want to believe anything else then what the bible says.As Luther already said centuries ago: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has". Though some, like VK1, do an attempt to reason, while they better have kept to their bible instead because they make such fools of themselves by trying to look knowledgeable.

Thanks for your replies. I agree that a mutation will spread more quickly in a smaller population. But mutations will be more frequent in a larger population. As you rightly point point out, genetic drift reshuffles the genes through reproduction but maybe this doesn't necessarily lead to genetic uniformity. Consider this, "The reproductive organs of each sex clearly constitute a complex suite of functionally coordinated adaptations: in males, the testicles, seminal vesicles, prostate, penis, and so on; in females, the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, and so on...see next

Yet the difference between these coordinated suites of adaptations is the result of a single-gene difference, the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. Males and females don’t have to differ in hundreds or thousands of genes to differ profoundly in their reproductive anatomy... Thus, differences in whole suites of adaptations can result from a single genetic switch." (Adapting Minds, Buller, 2005) I find it plausible that these switches, how many they may be still needs investigation, can survive reshuffling. I think this is how complex traits such as intelligence, hight etc. are found to be stable over many generations.

Yet one more thread has devolved due to the unnatural influence of superstition.

There just isn't. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that such a process exists.

-But it serves as a convenient example of the devolutionary effects that religion may have had on recent human evolution. As religionists tend to outreproduce rationalists, and also to persecute and slaughter them into oblivion, could it be possible that the viral god meme is selecting for individuals with less capacity for reason and sound judgment?

Could religion be genetically tailoring the species to accept irrational nonsense without question? Can this in part explain the chaos in much of the world today, where people fail to realize that too many children will inevitably cause some to starve, and that it is no ones fault but their own?

This is really not evolution but a demented form of domestication, whether self-driven or Intentionally caused for the Purpose of organizing the world. Either way it must end.

Yet the difference between these coordinated suites of adaptations is the result of a single-gene difference, the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. Males and females don’t have to differ in hundreds or thousands of genes to differ profoundly in their reproductive anatomy... Thus, differences in whole suites of adaptations can result from a single genetic switch." See Adapting Minds, Buller, 2005. I find it plausible that these switches, how many they may be still needs investigation, can survive reshuffling. I think this is how complex traits such as intelligence, hight etc. are found to be stable over many generations.

I'm doing a paper on fast vs. slow human evolution. The (few) authors I have come across regarding this subject often mention the number of people as a driving factor for faster evolution. This seems plausible to me considering more people equals more variation.

I don't know if evolution during the Pleistocene can be fully appreciated without considering the dynamics of tribal warfare, whereby a tribe that shared an intellectual advantage in communicating tactics or conceiving strategy would have been able to destroy their enemies and assimilate the females, thereby accelerating the spread of this capability.

This process alone may explain the creation of our unwieldy and defect-prone brains. Pop pressure and conflict over resources drove innovation and selected for intellect. Hunting animals is easy; hunting humans is hard, especially if they are hunting you in turn. As humans eliminated their natural enemies they were left with only themselves to contend with.

My only issue with it is does it operate in the way we currently describe it? I think there are things which are insufficient for the current theory to adequately explain...that doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong.

Yet one more thread has devolved due to the unnatural influence of superstition.

Devolution doesn't exist as evolution is a result of change in time, and time is one-directional. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else think a certain obtained trait by evolution is positive or negative.

otto1932,A mutation, if positive, can propagate through large populations, but it takes much longer and is just less likely to be selected for and to become permanent in the long run. It has a much lager chance to be dampened and eventually to be lost completely. It's statistics.

I think that this view of evolution, long periods of stability marked by rapid adaptation in the face of extraordinary environmental change is the correct view.

I think, for instance, it was a snowball Earth event that produced the Cambrian explosion. Which in my view was the most significant evolutionary step taken on the planet, with the possible exception of the evolution of intelligence.

--------------But mutations will be more frequent in a larger population.--------------That's why smaller populations are more likely to go extinct (99.9% of all species that ever lived vanished from the face of the earth). But when a small population get a positive mutation this is likely to spread much more rapidly throughout the population and become dominant. In a larger population the effect of a positive mutation is more likely to fade out of the population.

Yet one more thread has devolved due to the unnatural influence of superstition.

Devolution doesn't exist as evolution is a result of change in time, and time is one-directional. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else think a certain obtained trait by evolution is positive or negative.

I was referring to it in this sense:"Evolution is the development of an organism from its chemicals or primitive state to its present state. Devolution is the sequence toward greater simplicity or disappearance or degeneration."

-I dont think there is much that can be considered 'natural' about the current human form or function. We have been subjected to a few million years of competition with fellow tool users, adaptation to technologies such as fire and clothing, and intra- and intertribal social influence such as trade, superstition, etc.cont.

The human brain is far larger in comparison to body weight than any other animal. It consumes 20% of the bodys energy output. It is prone to defect and damage, and begins to degrade after age 15.

We are 'naturally' born prematurely because of the size limits of the female birth canal, which has widened as much as it can to accomodate the passage of the human head.

This suggests to me that the state of the human brain is an unnatural one and, in the absense of the forces which created it, would revert to something more sound and sustainable.

Feral animals such as dingoes or hogs will begin to regain the traits they lost during domestication, essentially devolving to a more primitive form. I think humans can also revert to more primitive forms, and I think that changes such as the advent of agriculture and religions which allow people to think less for themselves, can be a cause of this.

-----------------If someone can perhaps give a plausible explanation that accounts for that information content, .... -----------------

RNAInformation is what is encoded (differences in chemical composition) in the molecule to make it more chemically stable. This eventually lead to DNA because it consists of 2 strands, making it even more stable.

otto1932,A mutation, if positive, can propagate through large populations, but it takes much longer and is just less likely to be selected for and to become permanent in the long run. It has a much lager chance to be dampened and eventually to be lost completely. It's statistics.

Unless the people who are propagating it have some consistant advantage on the battlefield, and can overrun their competition in a region and spread this mutation by impregnating all the females. Then this propagation can happen extremely rapidly.

The term 'population' doesnt equate to the tribal nature of protohuman tool/weapon users and the dynamics of conquest, which was clearly a factor in their evolution.

Information is what is encoded (differences in chemical composition) in the molecule to make it more chemically stable. This eventually lead to DNA because it consists of 2 strands, making it even more stable.

That's a good explanation of how it's coded, stored, transferred...says NOTHING about where the information was produced.

It's the difference between giving someone an explanation of how information is stored on a hard drive when they asked about how a word document was produced that resides on the hard drive.

otto1932,when you say something is not natural, is it then supernatural?And hugs and dingoes don;t "devolve". They never lost those traits in the first place, but were not expressed for whatever reason. In different circumstances these traits are being expressed again. Evolution is passing and change of acquired traits through the genetic make-up from generation to generation, it doesn't happen on individual level.

-And if this mutation is one that causes a brain defect which favors the the embrace of religionist delusion over sensual reality, and leads to the type of aggression and social cohesion which assists in its spread, then it would tend to prevail despite its detriment to the individual organism.

Modernmystic,information is something that can be used or interpreted a certain way. Hydrogen and oxygen contain different information, because they react differently. The same goes for RNA or DNA. Basically they are sugar-like molecules that had certain capabilities to react a particular way with other chemicals. These reactions change the information.

otto1932,when you say something is not natural, is it then supernatural?

Nothing either supernatural or natural about domestication, or something resembling it. And can adaptation to domesticated foods or smoke from fire be considered natural?

And hugs and dingoes don;t "devolve". They never lost those traits in the first place, but were not expressed for whatever reason. In different circumstances these traits are being expressed again. Evolution is passing and change of acquired traits through the genetic make-up from generation to generation, it doesn't happen on individual level.

Both dingoes and thoroughbreds breed true. At what point do domestics become seperate species? What is the line between evolution and adaptation? Does a liger mean that tigers and lions are the same species? Could homosapiens mate with australopithecus?

Well then it can't be a good storage mechanism then can it? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's good at information storage, or it's good at information production. You try and mix the two and all you get is garbage in garbage out.

Well then it can't be a good storage mechanism then can it? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's good at information storage, or it's good at information production. You try and mix the two and all you get is garbage in garbage out.

Well that's certainly not correct. The hard drive you're using right now both produces and stores information without issue. Chemical storage is similar to magnetic storage. Information is both produced and stored based upon what section of the total system.

Your DNA isn't all there is to it. You have multiple forms and types of DNA that function as pattern storage and as templating material for further production.

ie: a sewing pattern is both information storage and production. It stores the actual templates for the pattern and when combined with material generates the physical product. DNA works in a similar way.

Well then it can't be a good storage mechanism then can it? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's good at information storage, or it's good at information production. You try and mix the two and all you get is garbage in garbage out.

Well that's certainly not correct. The hard drive you're using right now both produces and stores information without issue. Chemical storage is similar to magnetic storage. Information is both produced and stored based upon what section of the total system.

The problem here is that when the information is changed it changes the very structure of the system ITSELF. It's not only like the hard drive doing different things on different sectors, when you change DNA/RNA it's like the hard drive physically re-designing itself as it goes along. How long before it no longer functions AS a hard drive?

when you change DNA/RNA it's like the hard drive physically re-designing itself as it goes along.

Nope, it's like a blip in the wave form.

How long before it no longer functions AS a hard drive?

Well after the death of the organism, which means that configuration wouldn't make it out of the factory.

Chances are you could read all the sentences I wrote in this post. The information content wasn't misunderstood, yet not all the lines contained accurate or complete information. Where you have multiple QA mechanisms (ie: English letters and the human mind) you will receive a functional end product.

otto1932,everything happening within the laws of nature is natural, therefor domestication is also natural. The selective pressures were just different than if those animals were running around in the wild.

otto1932,everything happening within the laws of nature is natural, therefor domestication is also natural. The selective pressures were just different than if those animals were running around in the wild.

Wolves occur naturally; wienerdogs do not, and would soon be extinct in a natural environment. And I think the human brain would revert- devolve- in the same way, if we were to return to gathering berries in eden.

If given enough time, would the human tropical repro rate have adapted to the seasonal restrictions of a temperate environment as other animals do? Would this have reduced pop pressure and the resultant conflict to the point where we would have been in equilibrium with the environment?

Is this what happened with neanderthal, who could not reproduce conflict losses as quickly as the tropical cromags and so disappeared? His brain was apparently slightly larger than ours; was it as energy-hungry?

Nothing semantics. It's just a form of symbiotic relationship. Good for us, good for them. We have 10 microorganisms per cell in our body. Many of which we can't do without. Other species also "domesticate" other life forms (e.g. termites grow fungi in their hills if I remember well). Other species also use tools. Just because we have a larger brain doesn't make our actions unnatural.Devolution can't happen. It will be a evolution even if we'd loose our brains and still manage to survive.I can't speculate about "what if" scenarios of species that once existed. Just accidentally dropped my crystal ball, I'm sorry.

Artificial: humanly contrived often on a natural model : man-made, as an artificial limb

The distinction between man-made and natural is a valid and a useful one. And certainly, many forms of domestication cannot be considered 'good' for the affected species, considering for instance how veal is made. And many forms of domestication render the species incapable of surviving in a natural environment, as I think our own domestication has done.

Just because we have a larger brain doesn't make our actions unnatural.

Yes it does, per the definition of 'artificial'.

Other species also "domesticate" other life forms

Again, you are disregarding the proper definition of domestication: "A defining characteristic of domestication is artificial selection by HUMANS." You or anybody can redefine words to suit their own theories. Sometimes it works.

otto1932,It's seems it's you who's got caught by semantics. Most of the words you use and their definitions were made up when there was little known about animal behavior. Crows use sticks to get worms out of tree branches. Is this an artificial beak or nail? I think it is, but still it's not unnatural. The fact that humans are much better at it doesn't instantly make it unnatural, neither does a dictionary dictate what's natural or not just because it subscribes certain behavior explicitly to humans.Words and their meaning can change over time. There were days that being gay had nothing to do with homosexuality. Now hardly anyone knows what it meant before.

otto1932,It's seems it's you who's got caught by semantics. Most of the words you use and their definitions were made up when there was little known about animal behavior.

And so you have decided to change them? A little arrogant dont you think?

Crows use sticks to get worms out of tree branches. Is this an artificial beak or nail? I [sic] think it is, but still it's not unnatural. The fact that humans are much better at it doesn't instantly make it unnatural, [according to you] neither does a dictionary dictate what's natural or not just because it subscribes certain behavior

So while you alone are rewriting the dictionary, you think you can come up with a word which describes domestication as artificial selection by humans? Because, as I say, the distinction is a useful one, it is in common use by experts in their respective fields, and it is still in all the latest dictionaries now in use.

All of which kind of implies youre a pinhead of some sort, dont you think?

Oh come on frajo, you 5/5 this guy even though hes single-handedly redefining a technical term to suit some transient popularist misanthropic opinion? Misanthropy went out of fashion 30 years ago. Are you misanthropic also?

They certainly would try.

Well, maybe you are. Cromags would only mate with the women; they would eat the men. Little difference between hunting and fighting, and why leave all that good protein to rot on the battlefield? Ever been to Borneo?

@BartoAh. Somebody already beat you to it:"Ant-fungus mutualism is a symbiosis seen in certain ant and fungal species, where ants actively cultivate fungus much like humans farm crops as a food source."http://en.wikiped...utualism

Words defined in dictionaries are not technical definitions. And not all dictionaries have the same definitions. And I'm not redefining anything, but similarities that fall out of a certain definition because of the word "human" is used either demands a correction to envelope the full context, or a new word that envelopes it all. Similarities are similarities, independent of if you like it or not or how you want to call it.And why am I misanthropic just because I see there are similarities between human and other animals behaviors? That's just ludicrous.About the termites/ants: I said "if I remember well". Obviously I was slightly off. It's still symbiosis, like we do with our cultivated plants and animals.

I'll give you a start:"Domestication (from Latin domesticus) or taming is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to HUMAN provision and control."http://en.wikiped...tication

"Thus, domesticated. domestication Biology, the breeding of an animal or plant to adapt it for human use or life with humans."-Academic Press dictionary of science and technologyhttp://books.goog...;f=false

Were going astray. You keep playing the semantics game. A domesticating process is a natural process, even though the selective pressures are human. We are part of nature, the animals we domesticate are natural, the means are natural. So domestication is natural.

- The process of cheetahs chasing antelopes and choosing the slowest creates faster antelopes. The fastest cheetahs survive and the fastest antelopes survive, passing on their "fast genes".- Humans choosing cows which produce more milk and let them breed creates new generations of cows that produce more milk than other cows that were not selected for milk production.

First let me assert what I think you're trying to say: you're afraid that humans are evolving toward some kinds of a hive-like condition -- individualism falls away, intelligence atrophies, self-sufficiency vanishes and what's left is a bulk organism whose constituents cannot survive unless as part of the whole.

To some extent, I think this is valid. Particularly once humans begin to colonize naturally inhospitable environments (Moon, Mars, etc.) Modern civilization and high technology make our high population densities and luxurious lifestyles possible; if this artificial medium were to fall apart overnight, the vast majority of modern humans would be dead soon after. The complexity of our technological and economic infrastructures is quite breathtaking (yet still growing exponentially), and I think starting to rival even that of any stand-alone organism. We've been evolving a collective superstructure, which is increasingly circumscribing and subsuming us.

otto and bartolo I think you both agree but just enjoy a good argument. And who can blame you? There is not much that is more fun than a good argument.

Or at least I used to think so these days I am so domesticated that I cant get up a good head of steam to enjoy a good argument anymore.

We as a species are domesticating ourselves as well as the planet these days. Domestication is a behavioral change but genetics comes in to it when we breed for traits that lead to easier domestication.

These days the man that gets angry quick and maybe beats his wife or his neighbours will find himself in gaol. His chances of reproduction go down. The sneaky person that lies and cheats may well impregnate more woman. Worst of all is the sperm donor that has 100 children.

If this keeps up the future of mankind will end up in the hands of the type of person that gives sperm.

But on other counts, I disagree. For instance, size of brain and/or nutritional requirements. Would you say that Caesarian Section is a "natural" method of birth? It's common in the developed world... Are you aware of the obesity epidemic? If anything, we have more nutrition than our bodies know what to do with.

There is no selective pressure for simpler minds. In fact one could argue, the higher the population density, the more intelligence is rewarded: because first and foremost, intelligence allows one to take advantage of the less intelligent.

You could say that religious people have more offspring, but is religiosity genetic? Is it derived from genes, or memes? Atheism is a fairly recent invention; throughout much of human history widespread superstition was the norm. Atheism isn't a product of genes; it's a product of increasing knowledge and expanding horizons. It is a function of memes.

I think we don't agree, otto claims human intervention is not natural but artificial. I claim everything within the scope of natural laws is natural. Even PinkElephants example of Caesarian Section is natural. When, for whatever reason, we loose the ability to do Caesarian Sections, nature will reduce the number of too large heads again. Nature has no morals.

If this keeps up the future of mankind will end up in the hands of the type of person that gives sperm.

But on other counts, I disagree. For instance, size of brain and/or nutritional requirements.

These are well-known and accepted facts. Our brains are gluttons. It really takes 2 to birth a human baby, as it necessarily comes out face down. This has been suggested as a reason post-menopausal women have been evolutionarily selected for.

Women suffer during childbirth more than any other animal. Heads are too BIG.

You could say that religious people have more offspring, but is religiosity genetic?

I am saying quite possibly yes. I recent article here attributes liberalism to genes. There is increasing evidence to support the idea that complex behaviors are caused by the unique structure of the brain, which is a product of evolution; whether natural or artificial.

IF the urge to genuflect is caused by a defect and genuflecters tend to fear and loathe those who dont, then this defect could proliferate. This doesnt mean that the defect is normal or the behavior beneficial.

And then, there's the whole aspect of Kurzweil's Singularity. Within this or the next century, we'll be bioengineering ourselves and our environment. We will originate completely artificial organisms, both biological and non-biological in construction. True artificial intelligence is absolutely predestined to appear: the only question is when, not if.

At that point, it becomes impossible to predict what will happen. We're all currently too stupid, and too ignorant, to even come up with a reasonably well-founded guess.

I think human husbandry has been happening for a very long time. Take the hymen for instance. It is rare in primates- only 1 species of gorilla and 1 lemur have hymens.

But suppose enlightened Leaders in prehistory figured that the best way to ensure that their tribe would prevail in battle, was to propagate their champions. The only way to ensure that warriors were breeding true would have been the hymen; and so they could have selected for this rare mutation by killing all unhymenated females.

Arranged marriages and hymen repair are popular in many areas around the world. Indeed they are.

Just like with any other species; it's called "sexual selection". But hardly anything orchestrated.

The only way to ensure that warriors were breeding true would have been the hymen

Not unless you repaired the hymen after each mating. Besides, battle champions tend to have rather short lives. It's the cowards and the schemers who tend to stay behind and breed.

It really takes 2 to birth a human baby, as it necessarily comes out face down. This has been suggested as a reason post-menopausal women have been evolutionarily selected for.

Unlikely. A woman in prone position can easily give birth by herself (provided the baby isn't in breach.) The more likely reasons for extended sterile senescence are the prematurity and nutritional requirements of babies, which you've mentioned. Grandparents aid survival of children, not least by allowing both parents to forage while the child is safely looked after.

IF the urge to genuflect is caused by a defect and genuflecters tend to fear and loathe those who dont, then this defect could proliferate.

But they tend to fear and loathe each other just as much.

And it really depends on what you mean by "genuflecters". If you mean they're more submissive to authority, then that implies they're also less naturally assertive/aggressive. If you mean they're more gullible, then that implies they're also less intelligent. Neither of those two features would provide a particular advantage. If they're more taken to flights of fancy, then that's a potential creativity advantage, but at the cost of uniformity...

But again, you're assuming a great deal about any genetic connection. As I mentioned before, Atheism is a recently-emergent phenomenon. And it is definitely NOT what you would call "natural". It is culturally derived (knowledge-based), and so obviously not genetic. So, it doesn't make much sense to call its antithesis genetic, either.

In part-agreement with Pink_elephant, it's this SMALL population that already contained the required information that created the kind of diversity we see today.

Minus your nonsense about the bible and flood in your comment, is the above excerpt your own admission of evolution? You are claiming that a flood left very few humans and other animals which allowed for the variation we see today. That sounds like evolution talk to me. I don't agree with the flood part at all, but I'll be glad if you've at least accepted in your mind that evolution happens, even if you insist it happened after "the flood".

As we don't yet have - besides wild speculations - the slightest idea of the fundamental components/circuitry by which self-awareness emerges we cannot exclude that it turns out to not be feasible once it is understood.

I don't know about that. I think we, or at least I, have some idea.

Our brains are made up of many parts that behave both independently and dependently. Literally through introspection I can see parts of my mind thinking about thinking. Right now for instance. It seems to me that the process of observing my own thinking IS what makes self-awareness.

When we can make a computer that watches its own behavior, and can modify it, I think we will have a self aware computer. Not even sure if there is a need for self modification. Lots people seem to find it difficult if not impossible.

As we don't yet have - besides wild speculations - the slightest idea of the fundamental components/circuitry by which self-awareness emerges we cannot exclude that it turns out to not be feasible once it is understood.

That's not quite true. The organization of the neocortex is a key part of the equation. The Blue Brain project is attempting to create a synthetic brain by reverse engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level. I don't think we need to 'understand' self-awareness per se to create it, as it's likely to be an emergent property of a sufficiently complex, associative network.

I'll give you a start:"Domestication (from Latin domesticus) or taming is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to HUMAN provision and control."http://en.wikipedia...

Your distinction between human and non-human is not served well by the Romans. They knew animated ("anima" = soul/air/breath ==> "animal" = being/creature) and non-animated objects, but slaves were just tools with the ability to talk for them.

Dismantling words to extract meaning... The def in all sources I saw is the same; HUMAN-derived. LOOK it up. I am not redefining the word like you and your buddy.

I think it can be argued that contemporary religions select for simple minds. Simple-minded people are also easier to govern.

If you want to make a career in the RCC or the Greek orthodoxy, a simple mind won't get you far. The late archbishop Christodoulos of Athens was fluent in six languages. The Jesuits are famed for their education. Every serious believer in these churches will be proud to see a family member in the higher clergy. There certainly is no more selection for simple minded people than in any society which is worshipping TV.

Well yes, priests and shamans must be well-versed in their esoterica for convincing foisting. For mass deceptioning. The masses however, must be dim enough to fall for it without question.(uh, you mean god is 3 parts in 1? Or is that 1 part of 3, which is half-man?? Our prophet flew to jerusalem to get to heaven... Etc)

Academic achievements add credence and authority to the lie that what they are selling is real. It is not.

I'm not here just to win the argument, to redefine words, nor to fraud myself into winning. But I'm right until proven wrong. Show me where I my reasoning is flawed and you make my day, as than I'd have learned something new. I didn't start using words like domestication anyway. It was about natural or unnatural.

If everything is natural within the scope of natural laws (what other scope is there?), then why do we even have the word natural (and artificial)?

I think frajo did some of the explaining already, but let me say it my own way.

Let me build my case again:Everything not-natural is super-natural. The latter can never be disproved. Natural is everything that obeys the natural laws and everything that is a result of the processes governed by natural laws. "Artificial" things are not part of biological evolution, but are created by creatures that are, no matter if it's done by chimps, crows, ants or humans and can't go against the laws of nature.

Everything not-natural is super-natural. The latter can never be disproved. Natural is everything that obeys the natural laws and everything that is a result of the processes governed by natural laws. "Artificial" things are not part of biological evolution, but are created by creatures that are, no matter if it's done by chimps, crows, ants or humans and can't go against the laws of nature.

Hopefully you can discern the difference between your 'case' and the accepted norm. The word artificial is used to describe things that are human-derived.

Termites build hills to live in, chimps build nests and humans build houses.Crows and chimps use sticks to get to their food, humans use extensions as well when our limbs are too short to reach to something.The sticks, nests, hills but also stones used by animals are tools thus artificial, still they're referred to as natural behavior for these animals Then the same goes for human tools, no matter how complicated they are compared to the chimp-stick.I defend that nothing unnatural can come forward out of natural behavior. Couldn't unnatural things explicitly come forward out of unnatural behavior?When we refer to tools made by animals as natural, than a human house and an airplane are also natural.

Unnatural, or supernatural would be e.g. telekinesis. If that would be shown to be truly possible then this would become natural as well and even more so when it would be found out how this was supposed to work.

Your flaw is an embarrassing one. You fail to acknowledge that in many ways humans are DIFFERENT, and it is necessary sometimes to make the distinction using commonly accepted words with agreed-to definitions which can be found in reference books. Klar?

otto, your remarks are so "2 centuries". Humans are part of nature. That's not minimizing humanity, that's just comparing what other animals can do that's pretty similar to human behavior, though very basic. It's more like recognizing other animals are not as stupid as our ancestors thought centuries ago.Sharks are also very different, they have electro-receptors and brains developed to comprehend the signals.

As I already said, I didn't start using the word domestication, I initially replied to you about the use of the word "nature". You're avoiding the subject by continuing to return to the definition of that word and are not willing to comment on the substance and logic of my reasoning.

Domestication makes animals LESS able to survive without their Shepherds.

Bees can't survive without flowers and vv. How many people would be able to survive in the wilderness, without agriculture or domesticated animals? It's a symbiotic relationship. Tit for tat. You help me survive, I help you survive.

otto, your remarks are so "2 centuries". Humans are part of nature. That's not minimizing humanity, that's just comparing what other animals can do that's pretty similar to human behavior, though very basic. It's more like recognizing other animals are not as stupid as our ancestors thought centuries ago.

You know, part of your problem here is you think you've come up with something unique (it's not) or progressive (it's not) and are trying to demonstrate your talents to the community here.

The distinction between the human animal and everything else has been and is being... debated. Your 'case' has already been made and most everyone besides you is well aware of that. That you fail to recognize the explanation I've given you for the need for words like artificial and domestication to remain as they are is... tiresome.

you think you've come up with something unique (it's not) or progressive (it's not) and are trying to demonstrate your talents to the community here.

I don't think it's unique or more progressive than what naturalists already know.

The distinction between the human animal and everything else has been and is being... debated.

You seem to have not understood it well.

Your 'case' has already been made and most everyone besides you is well aware of that. That you fail to recognize the explanation I've given you for the need for words like artificial and domestication to remain as they are is... tiresome.

Again, I didn't bring up domestication and artificial, that was you. I'm "trying" to discuss with you what's the nature of nature.But if you say that a stick used by a chimp is not a tool or artificial, still claim that exactly the same tool used by humans is artificial, therefor not natural, then indeed we can't convince each other and our conversation ends.

-But your uncommon density demonstrates how belief systems based on opinion instead of fact, such as in religion or philosophy, can arise. Some contrarian, usually adolescent, finds some arbitrary fault with a prevailing dogma, and despite convincing argument and explanation, refuses to give it up. Gullible types like MM or those discontent with the status quo like Frajo (otto- status quo??!???!) pile on, and soon they are all marching off toward Antioch.

It is the biological nature of youth to be pioneers, to venture out to find new niches to fill, and to find or create reasons for doing so. Your reticence is genetically predetermined. So much for free will. Thanks for the opportunity to make a Point. Oh, and chimps aren't human.

Tiring indeed... I never said chimps are humans, neither are crows, termites and ants. You just refuse to go into the argument that if one compares methods used by animals in general concerning tool-use, that they're similar and should be grouped together under the same denominator.Do you really have no argument against that, except for "humans are sooo wonderfully special"?

You don't consider the etymology, the history of the words you are focussing upon.

Use a dictionary for the agreed-to, commonly recognized word defs despite their ancient roots or current mistranslation by ausländern. It's not what they or their components USED to mean, it's what they mean NOW, which is important. Frajo knows this but is being deliberately obstructionist for unknown reasons.

Today we know better than that. Thus there is no reason to narrow the meaning of "artificial" down to its obsolete ancient use.

And STILL we are left with a myriad of reasons to refer to humans and their creations as separate and distinct from everything else, and we ALWAYS will. Should we give the current lexicon to revisionists and invent all new words for doing this, or should we have the revisionists invent their own words? And if their revisions should prove ephemeral, as most do, then what? I repeat, then what?

- like so many artificial distinctions between humans and animals before.

And I'll make a similar-type speculative prediction: that, as our humanness comes under increasing threat from simulation and augmentation technologies, people will begin to celebrate the distinction again. Nothing new under the sun. Thankyou for your reasonable concession.

The 7 entries for "artificial" are optional; they don't have to be valid all at the same time.

Are you stamping your feet and turning blue at the moment? You're arguing the wrong question. Otto does not leap to other peoples conclusions. Your artificial champion tool user argument misuses the word in 2 ways: chimps aren't human, and their tools do not mimic a natural object.

I'm not asking to leap to my conclusions, just to answer two simple questions. I know chimps aren't humans and nowhere you can quote me where I said they were."and their tools do not mimic a natural object", I suppose that's for both chimp and human tools. When I use one of the definitions you quoted "artificial, unreal (contrived by art rather than nature)" both human and chimp tools would fit within this "artificial" definition?

When I use one of the definitions you quoted "artificial, unreal (contrived by art rather than nature)" both human and chimp tools would fit within this "artificial" definition?

The words art and artificial are both officially reserved for describing exclusively human things. Yes or No?

"Marjonism: the act of repeatedly introducing the same arguments into new threads and expecting everybody to fall for them despite the fact that they have been thoroughly discounted, time and again, and everybody is well aware of it." I think your usage of this word slightly deviates from the universally-accepted norm.

This is not to be confused with 'margarinism' which is the kind of thing expected from people like MM, who will agree with many areligionist things while waiting for a chance to interject 'god is king!' or somesuch.

No, I did find definitions not mentioning humans in the definition of "art" and others have posted definitions for "artificial" not mentioning "human" either. You just discard them because the line without "human" has no "1" in front or whatever unmentioned reason.

"Marjonism: What dictionary did you find this on? Google doesn't even know this word.But he quoted you, not me... And in earlier posts HS was more on my hand than yours, so I have my doubts the critique was exclusively directed at me. After all, you don't seem to be willing to answer my questions and keep repeating your definitions with exclusively "human" in them. But maybe it was meant for both of us?But only HS could make this more clear. Obviously I can't rely on you on this decision ;)

What purpose does this argument in semantics have relative to the article? Ultimately humans have evolved as a result of pressures we have placed upon ourselves. This isn't unique to humans, but it would seem to be much more prevalent in the human case than with the next closest species. Whether you call these pressures unnatural, or some other word to shown their human origin, does it really matter? Arguing over word choice is silly; unless I am missing something at the core of your arguments.I would be curious if someone had a theory about whether humans have in the past created these trigger points for evolution within our own species.

SH - I am pretty sure the origin is with the satellite and not cross breeding equines. Once in a "reproducing mule" doesn't really make sense.

No, I did find definitions not mentioning humans in the definition of "art" and others have posted definitions for "artificial" not mentioning "human" either. You just discard them because the line without "human" has no "1" in front or whatever unmentioned reason.

You did not find any which were the most common and widely accepted usage, so who's being deceptive? Your usage clearly fits none of them.

Butter - A soft yellowish or whitish emulsion of butterfat, water, air, and sometimes salt, churned from milk or cream and processed for use in cooking and as a food.

That sounds artificial to me, so how can you have an artificial version of an already artificial product? :)

Not everybody wants this to end..."Artificial: humanly contrived often on a natural model"; 'often' being the operative word. Butter is made from natural ingredients. Margarine is a contrivance meant to resemble the original. How's that?

It is annoying when otherwise rational people engage in false dichotomies like that. That simply is not English that you are using.

In NORMAL speech Natural is NOT a black and white word, it is a THREE way word.

Supernatural - which I and Otto agree does not exist.NaturalAnd the part you and several others are trying to bypass.That which humans have messed with.

Trying to force 'Natural' into a black and black white situation like you are doing is just plain strange. Sorta of reminds of the abuses of English that the religious fanatics engage in. Which is why I find it so annoying.

IF we use MISdefinition in question THENNatural includeBeetlesThe BeatlesLifeThe UniverseEverythingNuclear Bombs - now to show the silliness of your positionRiceWheatTwinkiesFruit RollupsToxic Waste

The distinction between "artificial" and "man-made" is important.A spider's web is as much artificial (and beautiful) as Beethoven's seventh symphony. Both are natural, too, as spider and human are components of nature.But only the symphony is man-made.

Again you're misconstruing the meaning of the specific word artificial. It is reserved for man-made things meant to substitute for other things in some fashion.

There other words for describing things like chimp tools and spiderwebs which are completely adequate to convey the distinction. Maybe some of you know what these words might be. Otto learned the word mutualism during the course of this discussion.

Frajo should appreciate the need to use appropriate words as they are intended to be used instead of bending and twisting others to fit; it is hard enough to communicate as it is. Which is what Ethelred has just said.

Just asking off the cuff here, but if you perform the same action with the word "artificial", are you not...

Trying to force 'Artificial' into a black and black white situation like you are doing is just plain strange. Sorta of reminds of the abuses of English that the religious fanatics engage in. Which is why I find it so annoying.

but if you perform the same action with the word "artificial", are you not...

Well if horses were rocks than that wouldn't be horse manure.

In other words I said nothing regarding ARTIFICIAL as that is yet another term that people got into by arguing about definitions instead of Evolution. Arguing from definition instead facts and reason is usually a bloody waste time. The only time it isn't is when the language being used simply doesn't have words to deal with the concepts involved or the normal words have an anthropomorphic weight that confuses the issue.

However since you bring it up in NORMAL use artificial refers to stuff we people do. I am fully willing to include Chimps and Crows when they manage to start selling artificial ants on the open market.

Its the processing not the species that makes things fit the concept of artificial. At least when other species have factories or even shops. Like in David Brin's Uplift War series.

Its the processing not the species that makes things fit the concept of artificial. At least when other species have factories or even shops. Like in David Brin's Uplift War series.

And yet, we may still want to have separate words to describe what humans are and what they do exclusively, and we might be very defensive about maintaining the distinction. The talking burros can file suit if they want.

you know a long time ago little otto and I got into an argument about god. Well really I got into an argument about god and he got into an argument about religion. I said it is wrong to oppress people because they believe in something and he eventually admitted to the desire to eradicate them from the planet Hitler style. Later I proved positive he was a troll, and he vanished for about a month. My point? Otto the more I read your comments the more it becomes clear that what I said was false. I said "You are smart, I've seen it." Turns out you are just a crap pipe. And a major reason great articles spiral down the toilet rather than being intelligently discussed.

@otto just cause you like to toss salad don't include me in your camp. maybe since you did not address my comment on your boy's practice of Mendel's principles "inbreeding" perhaps either you did not know that about your Saint (see Church of Virus.com) or you are a master chef and want to toss my salad which i don't appreciate. either way i appreciate the comments idiot.

Actually slayers pretty cool... but its not black metal, is it now. I dont understand your comment tho; are you saying that darwin should have been aware of the dangers of inbreeding but chose to attempt it anyway, and his book must be garbage because of this? Or what?

Eugenics is Inevitable, given that humans have had 20k+ yrs experience with husbandry and that Rulers would have wanted to breed undesirable traits, if anything, out of their flocks. Castes, mating restrictions, arranged marriages are the norm rather than the exception in societies. The human form may be more artificial than we might imagine.

you know a long time ago little otto and I got into an argument about god...I said it is wrong to oppress people because they believe in something and he eventually admitted to the desire to eradicate them from the planet Hitler style.

See how hard it is to communicate? You read 'arkaine obviously loses' and think this means you actually win somehow?

Later I proved positive he was a troll

In your own mind

and he vanished for about a month.

Meaning you did your best to avoid me?

My point?

Your head?

Otto the more I read your comments the more it becomes clear that what I said was false. I said "You are smart, I've seen it." Turns out you are just a crap pipe.

And who cares what you think?

And a major reason great articles spiral down the toilet rather than being intelligently discussed.

Since you dont take issue with anything specific I assume youre just off your meds, and the cholera is again causing you to evacuate. Come back when youre regular-

Okay... Maybe I was a bit too harsh, your theory on human evolution isn't completely bat $h17 crazy. However coupled with the zealous desire to "educate" the religious, plus your theory on how the evil religion has guided human evolution, and your odd rambling about what is "natural" and "unnatural" once you get to the probable stuff all I hear is... CRAZY!

And who cares what you think?

And then there is the fact you act like a 12 year old anytime some one confronts you.

-But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar because it is based on nothing REAL and is constructed on principles of exclusionism and elitism and reproductive opportunism, which all major religions are. Dont you agree?

And then there is the fact you act like a 12 year old anytime some one confronts you.

-But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar because it is based on nothing REAL and is constructed on principles of exclusionism and elitism and reproductive opportunism, which all major religions are. Dont you agree?

... no...

do you not pay attention to anything you preach about?

you speak of the evils of religion and then condone the same acts done by religious organizations for centuries because it fits YOUR belief system? Hypocrite thy name is Otto.

But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar

Every small-minded tyrant was, is, and will be able to claim that his opponents believe just what you described.This planet has been flooded with blood because of mighty people thinking/preaching/acting exactly what you are talking.

But...I thought you HATED nazis...Make up your mind already."The term oppression is primarily used in such instances to refer to the subordination of a given group or social category by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms in order to achieve the effects noted above."

-And how do we make nazis experience the results of their oppressing, but in kind? Is this not what sharia says?

-They feel western sanctions are oppression. They feel that others who hold conflicting beliefs are oppressing them just by existing. So they consider whatever it is we do to oppose their sickness oppression anyway, even if we do not.

The operative word here is 'unjust'. Any rejection or criticism of religionists is regarded as unjust and thusly as oppression by them. But they still need to be rejected and they still need to be criticized despite what the namecallers would label these actions.

Frajo thinks this means rivers of blood I guess, ignoring the fact that religionism regularly demands this against their enemies.

-How would you deal with nazis, islamists, gangsters, or the like who wish to do the same to you? Do we acknowledge that religions all inevitably cause these things to be done to people without fail?

No people like you are the cause of these things. You find a cause, the easiest one is a religion (as it is for you), and you manipulate it, twist it, and then use it to gather support and grow your own power. It is people like you who lead to the suffering of the world. Religion is the excuse for evil people, it is not the reason reason for evil.

But as it stands, there's no known random physical process that can generate that kind of information. There just isn't. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that such a process exists.

Then Ethelrd said

MUTATIONS are random. SELECTION is NOT random.

Information comes from the environment via natural selection. The process of selection is in no way random. Mutations often don't create any new genetic material, but damage that which exists.

Selection can only happen at the organism level, not at the genetic level. If genetic information is not expressed in way that enhances survival, then it cannot be SELECTED for. Any genetic information that was incomplete in terms of physical expression could not be preserved through SELECTION.

Since a physical mutagen affects the genetic code without a plan, then one must either show that physical/chemical laws constrain that affect or accept that it is a random change.

Evolution of the human species has more or less come to a stand-still because of we're in such large numbers living relatively close to each other and all our traveling and intermingling habits don't support fast evolution either.

The 'natural' evolution of our species was stopped when we developed intelligence and technology. Our species future evolution, if any, is under our control now. Unfortunately it isn't under any individual's control, it is under control of our species as a a group, controlled by society(s). Any further evolution of our species will be anything but 'natural'.

No people like you are the cause of these things. You find a cause, the easiest one is a religion (as it is for you), and you manipulate it, twist it, and then use it to gather support and grow your own power. It is people like you who lead to the suffering of the world. Religion is the excuse for evil people, it is not the reason reason for evil.

Haven't read much of the old testament, or the Koran for that matter have you?

Religions enable evildoers to do their work. They demand evil in order to protect themselves and expand their influence. They make evil inevitable because of their policies of exclusion and forced reproduction.

For these reasons Religionism itself is evil as no other social institution could ever be. This is because religions are DESIGNED for the purpose.

Just thought I would chime in with those that are still waiting for anything approaching real proof that random chance mutations and natural selection can accomplish anything significant. Yes, we know that minor changes have resulted from these forces. In that sense, "evolution" occurs. What we don't know is that this evolution can or has done anything really interesting. Nor does anyone have a reasonable materialistic explanation for why life exists at all. It's possible that sufficient proof will materialize some day. It wouldn't offend me if it did. Until that day, I have happy sticking with what the evidence actually suggests: that something or someone transcendent is required to account for the presence of life and the incredibly diverse and interdependent life systems we observe. That evolution can accomplish anything beyond minor change within species is a guess at best and only a unnecessary obligation to materialism keeps otherwise smart folks from recognizing this.

-And we're all familiar with similar from the OT. Jesus said so himself; 'I came to bring not peace but a sword'. This is evil. They read these things in Mein Kampf. The time to stand against national socialism came and went, and the people were starving in the Knechtschafft and said, well maybe he's right.

And yet, we may still want to have separate words to describe what humans are and what they do exclusively

You might. I don't see the need. MAYBE when dealing with a sufficiently alien species that we can't even begin to comprehend THEN special terms might be advisable. Otherwise its just taking racism into new territory.

But then I read a LOT of science fiction. Often dealing with both sentient Aliens and sentient Machines. I am comfortable with the idea of treating sentient beings as similarly. As long as they aren't into human on the recipe list or other forms of genocide.

And no I don't eat chimp. Nor crow, but the fact is the opportunity hasn't arisen regarding crow. Not literally anyway. I am swearing off budgies as well. Still not certain about cetaceans but I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

what would you think of the various hive-like social creaure, ants, bees, etc that do have a similar division of labor and social construct?

I tend to think of hives as extended individuals. Only the queens and drones reproduce. The rest are just biological tools much like fingernails and legs. What they do is something that evolved rather than something that they thought out. The environment shaped their behavior, also without thought.

Now if we should run across a sentient hive species that intentionally fashioned tools that they designed rather than produced out of instinct, that would be something else. In the meantime I will consider the group behavior of hive species as being more like the group behavior of the cells in my gut. They mostly behave according to local rules and take instructions from chemical signals. Only some human tissue is subject to nerve controls.

Selection can only happen at the organism level, not at the genetic level

Yes. Mutations happen at the genetic level and then are either selected IN or OUT by the environment.

If genetic information is not expressed in way that enhances survival, then it cannot be SELECTED for

Nor selected out. Most mutations appear to be neutral.

Any genetic information that was incomplete in terms of physical expression could not be preserved through SELECTION

Nor forced out through selection. Such mutations survival would be a matter of chance. Some should disappear and some should be retained, most remaining rare. Except in small populations where random chance plays a larger role.

then one must either show that physical/chemical laws constrain that affect or accept that it is a random change

For neutral mutations that is pretty much standard theory. Selection only effects mutations that effect survival. Which leaves lots of mutations for selection to work on.

What we don't know is that this evolution can or has done anything really interesting.

Actually we do. Fossils are ample evidence. The lab tests allow us to test the HOW. We already KNOW that evolution occurs. The question WAS why. Darwin and Wallace came up with a good answer. Over time the answer has been refined via new evidence and extended theory.

Nor does anyone have a reasonable materialistic explanation for why life exists at all.

Not actually relevant to evolution. However the answer is fairly clear. It exists because the Earth and physical laws allow it to exist. We have never found anything to the contrary. Of course believers have made up a lot crap to obfuscate that fact.

Until that day, I have happy sticking with what the evidence actually suggests: that something or someone transcendent is required to account

There is no such evidence. Dr. Behe has failed time and again to even TRY to prove his position. Most of his examples have been found wrong.

Rubbish. Pure religious thinking there. The whole thing about science is thatIF you don't look its bloody hard to find the truth.SO you MUST assume that there is an answer. Any other path is pretty much a return to the Dark Ages when Europeans didn't bother trying to find HOW things worked because it was all the will of Jehovah. No rules just will.

Basically you are telling us we should stop looking for the truth because you don't like the answers that we find. That is what the rant about materialism boils down to. You don't want to know that your beliefs might be wrong. Which depends on how much you actually believe. The Flood?

Yes, we know that minor changes have resulted from these forces. In that sense, "evolution" occurs. What we don't know is that this evolution can or has done anything really interesting.

With many small brush strokes and minor changes in the tint of paint a beautiful masterpiece can come to life. Many small things when combined, like the cells in your body, can and do amazing things.

Nor does anyone have a reasonable materialistic explanation for why life exists at all.

Because it can.

I have happy sticking with what the evidence actually suggests: that something or someone transcendent is required to account for the presence of life and the incredibly diverse and interdependent life systems we observe.

Go ahead and show me that evidence please. Keep in mind, a lack of understanding, doesn't automatically imply that the opposite is true. You don't understand evolution, therefore you assume god exists... That's a false construct.

Can't be away for a day and people start smashing each others heads in ;)

@OttoYour rigid interpretations of dictionaries and "the first definition is the only one I use" just doesn't make sense. Why are there even more definitions for the same word in dictionaries anyway?"Art" is also defines as "skill", no human mentioned.I think my reasoning was pretty logically consistent and you didn't bring forward any reasonable argument that could falsify my reasoning.And concerning the eradication of religion debate: It's not what's written that's important, it's what's done with it by the followers. Most muslims are no terrorists. If they were, the world would look very different. Read this: http://xrl.in/6l9j.I'm an atheist and am flabbergasted so many people still believe in such nonsense as literal interpretations of bronze-age writings (or dictionaries ;) ), but as long as they don't hurt anyone or try to distort scientific progress, they are allowed to believe whatever they like.

@EthelredWhat can be considered natural? I'm still convinced that everything coming forward out of natural processes is natural by nature. Also artificial objects, music (music is music because are naturally created brains interpret it as such), etc. They don't need to be have directly come forward out of evolution, plate-tectonics, erosion or whatever process you can imagine that directly shapes things and the earth and universe. Humans came forward out of a natural process, including our "advanced" intelligence, so everything we create is natural by nature. We can't do anything that wouldn't be possible that can be considered unnatural.One could maybe conciser artificial (man- and animal-made) a subset of "natural", but that wouldn't make them un-natural.I'm not trying to distort English , but if the outcome of this exercise would be that current English is not sufficient to describe observations and logic, then so be it.

@WillingToListenThere is plenty of evidence for natural evolution of the variety of life on earth.There are quite a few well documented branches in the fossil record, like whales and birds to name a few, that clearly show transition of one species into another.Then there's the genetic evidence. All lines up and confirms all life has a single common ancestor.Then there's embryology. Embryos of different species in different states of development show remarkable similarities, before they "branch off" to morph into the phenotype of the species they belong to. Some humans are even born with a skinny tail, and human embryos go through a stage in which they're covered with furry hair that disappears again before birth.And there's evidence that evolution was not by intelligent design, but by natural selection which is unintelligent design. A good example is the Recurrent laryngeal nerve. There are piles of evidence for natural selection, but you'll have to search for it.

As long as we are talking about the words "nature" and "artificial" we are not talking just about plain English words.

Actually some were using them as such. Someone lead Otto down the primrose path which is when Artificial came into the picture.

Only dead languages don't evolve anymore

True but irrelevant to my point. You were actually engaged in trying to avoid Otto's point by changing the words under Otto's feat.

The word "nature" is not plain English. It is Latin (natura)

I don't care about it's roots. I care about it's USAGE in normal discourse. English speakers don't care where the word came from. YOU pointed out yourself the language changes. So why bring up long redacted usage?

Nature has a perfectly useful meaning. Force fitting it into an obsolete mold to undercut someone is simply trying to bypass REAL discussion. Which results in the sort of crap that was going on.

If you want to say something other than Nature then choose another word.

The word "nature" is not plain English. It is Latin (natura) and used in French, German, Russian and a lot of other languages, too.

Your head is so full of words, do they tend to leak out your ears sometimes? You probably appreciate the subtle differences meanings have between languages. When words do evolve, new meanings are recorded in dictionaries so we can look them up and find out what they are. Until then they're just the random cleft palate or sixth toe.

Your rigid interpretations of dictionaries and "the first definition is the only one I use" just doesn't make sense.

Not my interpretation. If you want to be understood you use words properly. That's what dictionaries are for. You'll learn this as you mature.

And concerning the eradication of religion debate: It's not what's written that's important, it's what's done with it by the followers. Most muslims are no terrorists

The fact that it IS consistently written in all holy books means that violence was intended to be an integral part of religion. It makes violent acts mandatory when the religion comes under threat, actual or perceived. What is irrelevant is the many reasons and excuses religious books give for that violence, ie promised land, blasphemy, no burka, etc. The violence itself is what matters.

Someone lead Otto down the primrose path which is when Artificial came into the picture.

Yeah otto was in the midst of trying to foist his pet theories of human domestication when derailed. It's true you know. Shepherds and all. Wheat from chaff.

Can't be away for a day and people start smashing each others heads in ;)

Yeah but for the most part we've constructed a microcosm of society. Difference is, we have a relatively reasonable similacrum for the opinions and ideologies of the western world amongst the most outspoken posters. It really is interesting to watch and participate in, although sometimes equally frustrating.

I would also suggest you Haven't read the Koran as it is not translated, that being a key part in Islam. Again it all boils down to Religion is an excuse for evil men. Who do you think wrote those books? It is not a chicken or the egg question, the answer is man. I would also suggest you have not studied much language either. A specific word in one language can have a set of various meanings. When you translate that word, the new word can also have its own set of meanings different than the original depending on the culture of that group or the wisdom of that group. For instance I will leave with with my favorite phrase from Buddhism. "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

But isn't all of this rather logical? I mean, natural selection relies on some significant advantage due to a variation/mutation of the theme. I think this is only amplified by external factors that will make this advantage (suddenly) relevant. I think most little differences won't help you reproduce a lot until you need the little difference to make it past puberty, so to say.It'd be nice if the religious people out there would open there eyes to see how evolution works in society, fashion, governments before they conclude that the principle does not exist in biology. Evolution is everywhere. It means that the state of things is not static. Never has been, never will. It's like mini-skirts. They are lovely until winter comes.

You statement is technically correct in so far that Buddhism isn't a religion, therefore it can't be a violent religion. It is, however, violent

The religion, as taught by The Budda, does NOT espouse violence, as far as I can tell. For that matter neither does Christianity IF one actually goes on the words of Jesus as opposed to the more psychotic parts of the Old Testament.

Whereas Islam is quite explicit about it. Every bit as bad and often worse than the Old Testament.

No I believe it is you sir, who underdoes it

Otto, there is concept called TOLERANCE. As in if they don't kill others I am not going to start killing them. You appear to advocating preemptive strikes. Against ALL religious groups. Which would include pacifist groups as some religions, even some Christians, are pacifist. Heck there are even some Sufis in Pakistan are refusing to use violence against the Taliban who are murdering them. Now that is taking peacefulness too far.

Otto, there is concept called TOLERANCE. As in if they don't kill others I am not going to start killing them. You appear to advocating preemptive strikes. Against ALL religious groups. Which would include pacifist groups as some religions, even some Christians, are pacifist.

They ALL have the potential to turn. It is explicitly written into their holy books, and is expected and demanded of them if and when their belief system comes under threat. This is principally how they have managed to prevail.

Further, even the most benign (at present) reinforce the belief in, and supremacy of, god. Allowing one means enabling all the others. They ALL share in guilt for spreading the lie and should ALL be held accountable for the damage it does, wherever it happens.

Religionism should be regarded as one malignant, self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating menace. Charity? Xian missionaries bribe the needy to convert. The 3rd? Pillar of Islam is reserved for the faithful, no matter what they tell you, whose families have grown too large to support. Charity can be much more equitably meted by secular, non-biased organizations.

No religion is safe, all must go. Religions make killing inevitable and are the first to propose it. Secular laws are how reasonable people fight injustice. Let's start by having them pay their own way. Tax them.

Spreading the lie is aiding and abetting all those who commit evil expressly because of it. The lie is the crime. You would say the same about national socialists? Not everyone worked the gas chambers. But those who helped spread the lie of racial supremacy shared in the guilt for the holocaust.

All religions preach the same message of exclusivism and freedom at the expense of others. This lie is inevitably used to harass, exclude, persecute, and murder with the same ease that racial supremacy was. 'God loves me more than you... Because he made me white/Arab/Hutu/worker? Or chose to make me a believer in the right prophet?

No difference whatsoever. And the results are always exactly the same.

The religion, as taught by The Budda, does NOT espouse violence, as far as I can tell. For that matter neither does Christianity IF one actually goes on the words of Jesus as opposed to the more psychotic parts of the Old Testament.

That can be said for almost all modern religious interpretations, however, this sect of Buddhism doesn't practice Ahimsa (non-violence).

Whereas Islam is quite explicit about it. Every bit as bad and often worse than the Old Testament.

Depends on which Hadith you read. The Bawa Muhaiyaddeen and the Pathan Sunnah are both pacifist groups within Islam.

There is a wide spectrum within each religion as to what is acceptable and what is not. You cannot paint any adherant with a single broad brush. You must, as Frajo said, look at the individual and judge them on their particular beliefs.

There is a wide spectrum within each religion as to what is acceptable and what is not. You cannot paint any adherant with a single broad brush. You must, as Frajo said, look at the individual and judge them on their particular beliefs.

"Slay them [infidels] wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

-And when the individual is doing what he/she is expected to do, as their peers and holyman and holybooks all require, then we can judge that, within the cultural context, what they're doing is right and proper. Like Nazis.

And as Frajo says, we ought to hunt down Nazis wherever they exist and crush them without pity.

Individuals can be acting on what they feel is right and what we might feel is wrong, simply because this is what we are led to believe. Individuals often have very little 'free will'. The belief systems which lead people to do evil in the name of good must end. This includes all religions. None is benign for long.

No I say it is YOU who talk Nazi talk. I'm not an idealist. Ideali leads to extremism because it is not based on reality. You are the one who is always invoking Nazis when you want to describe the worst of the worst. And what do we do with the worst of the worst? Give them visas? Do we redeem Nazis or only those who show tolerance and empathy?

Nazis, like other religionists, preached salvation, and were lauded until things got difficult. Then they turned to their books, und Gott, und der Feuhrer.

You use different wording, but essentially you talk nazi talk. (Replace "Jews" by "believers".)

me and bill mahar and Dawkins ET al point to a belief system that has PROVEN to cause inevitable harm and you label us Nazis. But this is Nazi-thinking. You are oppressing us.

Let me show how it always works...Some holyman, let's call him Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, finds a new interpretation and is a good talker. He leads a troupe out of oppression and to Philadelphia, and established a settlement in Chester county. Or somewhere.

The people love h because he is so peaceful, and talks to Mary mother of Jesus, and when he dies they make him a saint or prophet or something. As the followers feel blessed because they have been given obviously the correct path to salvation, they preach enthusiastically and reproduce with no regard for the future. Cont

Their numbers swell alarmingly. The farm settlent becomes a village, then a large town. Squabbles over land erupt with the Amish who have similar problems of their own. New leaders step up who open the Koran to the nasty parts and demand that the people defend their faith because it is not just their welfare which is at stake but that of the entire world, for they alone were given the means to save it by their beloved prophet, from evil heretics like the Amish.

Mayhem ensues of course. Buggys and souvenir shops are burnt. Intercourse PA becomes the site of a many unfortunate incidents.

Don't care which sect as I was talking about the teachings of the Buddha. Not stuff other people made up later. For instance the Trinity was made up later and was NOT from Jesus and therefor is not inherently Christian. I am simply pointing out that SOME religions, contrary to Otto's rant, are not inherently violent. I was pretty clear about that.

Depends on which Hadith you read.

Nonsense. It depends ONLY on what Muhammet WROTE himself. He was quite explicit. He LEAD battles. What more do you want to show intent by the founder? A twelve year old WIFE. Oops he had that as well.

You cannot paint any adherant with a single broad brush.

You should not accuse me of doing so when I did no such thing. I talked about the FOUNDERS.

All religions are inherently violent because people are inherently violent. Otto's idea of eugenics and population control is as disturbing and ill-founded as marjon's idea of capitalist anarchy, and is particularly hypocritical, seeing as it targets those of faith while being grounded in faith itself, in this case, faith in a trans-historical super-cabal of conspirators and master manipulators, as well as the existence of social evolutionary trends for which there is little evidence and which misconstrue the nature of evolution. Otto's a joke and is no real support of any serious atheist or agnostic. He condemns those who believe in an invisible sky fairy while at the same time believing in a scifi/fantasy story.

No, seriously, you will note that my anti-religionist attitudes have little to do with my world domination theories, which actually posit that religions were constructed the way they are by People who wanted to create Order from chaos.Like your philosophy nonsense. So from that perspective I think religions are a necessary evil, evil being the operative word.

But I am also playing the Role I am given, as we all do. People like me find religionism reprehensible and we are speaking out, because at this particular point in history we are SUPPOSED to. And again I cite bill maher and dawkins and legions of others who agree that all religions are dangerous.

Your feigned progressive tolerance and ardor for 'individualism' are passe and you should really try to keep up. Are you just sucking up to get the 5/5s? You see the power of the majority to shape individual opinion?

I mean, declaring ottos views on religion just because he believes in something else also, would be the same as saying some great philo was completely full of poop because he tried to sell some 'ding an sich' nonsense. Even a 2nd rate philo knows that's illogical.

Similarly,

All religions are inherently violent because people are inherently violent.

-is obviously flawed, because the logic would mean that any human institution is violent, when we know it is only those which have violence expressly written into their laws, as given by god, which necessarily are. Inevitably.

Otto's idea of eugenics and population control is as disturbing and ill-founded as marjon's idea of capitalist anarchy,

Hey I'm just the messenger here. Your tolerance of Nazi-like religions reminds one of world opinion toward the prewar NSDAP.

But I am also playing the Role I am given, as we all do. People like me find religionism reprehensible and we are speaking out, because at this particular point in history we are SUPPOSED to. And again I cite bill maher and dawkins and legions of others who agree that all religions are dangerous.

... so... in a since... you are in fact... taking the words of others who you have watched and listened to... and then are not citing those words in return to rise action against another group... lmfao! I was right, you really are nothing but a religious extremist! Oh good day sir you have just proven my point.

If I am then so are you, as is EVERYBODY. We cannot escape Influence. I can recognize it in myself and accept it. Can you? Admit that you did not conceive your opinions on your own, you just adopted those out there which you found agreeable. Am I right?

And how does being anti-religionist make me religious? You lost me there. As to my other theories they have nothing to do with faith or anything other than what is of this world, the only one there is.

@Etheired: You said "Most mutations appear to be neutral." and "Such mutations survival would be a matter of chance. Some should disappear and some should be retained, most remaining rare. Except in small populations where random chance plays a larger role."1) Could you please supply a reference for your assertion that most mutations are neutral? I mean, how would you know if it didn't express somatically?2)What would be the relative ratio of retained and not retained 'neutral' mutations? Especially is sexual reproduction.3) And, if mutations without survival enhancing properties were expressed in small populations - wouldn't that have a tendency to bring about population extinction more rapidly?

1) I'll let others supply you with the citations, as they'd know better than I where to find them anyway, however, there are good reasons to think that most mutations are neutral. First of all, it appears that most dna is non-coding. If you have a length of dna and 90% of it is non-coding, then the chance that a random mutation occurs on a coding bit is 10%. Further, most mutations even on coding bits don't seem to change the functionality of the resulting protein much, if at all. You'd know those mutations are there by sequencing the dna.

Religion comes down to one question. Was Jesus Christ the Son of God as he claimed? For it would be the critcal point of the supernatural meeting the natural.

No, there are a great many more questions that invalidate the mere mention of that question. Secondly, most religions don't believe in Jesus anything.

Doesnt matter. If Christ is God, all other religions are thus false. Their denial has no power to change that. In other words, your second statement is a strawman. Other's beliefs about Jesus have nothing to do with what Jesus himself claimed.

He is either a liar, a madman, or He is God. Those are the logical conclusions and to reckon with that changes the entire religion arguement.

2.) The chance that a neutral mutation is retained within a population depends on the size of that population. The bigger the population, the better the chance it is retained, but a small chance of it becoming common. In a small population, you have a better chance that it would be lost, but you also have a better chance that it would become prevalent if it is retained.3) If the mutation is neutral, then by definition it doesn't make a difference in the survival and reproduction of the individuals who have it, and wouldn't play any role in the likelihood of that species becoming extinct or not in a given time frame. If the environment changes and that mutation is no longer neutral, well, then all bets are off.

He is either a liar, a madman, or He is God. Those are the logical conclusions and to reckon with that changes the entire religion arguement.

Or he never existed or never made the claims attributed to him. You can't forget the fact that many of his self-proclaimed followers are both liars and madmen. Go learn your Christian history. It took nearly 100 years following the supposed death of your Jesus before his followers even decided that his divinity was a part of their doctrine of faith.

But I am also playing the Role I am given, as we all do. People like me find religionism reprehensible and we are speaking out, because at this particular point in history we are SUPPOSED to.

If I am then so are you, as is EVERYBODY. We cannot escape Influence. I can recognize it in myself and accept it. Can you?

You speak of influence as if it is final and inescapable, you state that you are simply playing a role you where given to full fill as if handed down to you by some divine host. You pass the buck just like any religious zealot as if it where a burden laid before you to take up.

@etheired: Thanks for feedback. So, most mutations occur outside of coding areas - and as such aren't retained in subsequent generations? Or are you saying that they are retained in the non-coding part of the DNA in subsequent generations and are never expressed due to the fact that they are non-coding?

Of those that are in coding areas some are not beneficial, some are beneficial, most are 'neutral'. That is, they have no perceptable affect on the viabiity of the organism.

So, for everybody - what citations do you have that have done research on the percentage of mutations in coding sequences of the DNA of any organism that are beneficial, neutral, or harmful?

This strikes me as, probably, a critical question as the only mechanism being cited for Darwinian or neo-Darwinian speciation is this mutational mechanism.

So, for everybody - what citations do you have that have done research on the percentage of mutations in coding sequences of the DNA of any organism that are beneficial, neutral, or harmful?

You can't do that research realistically. Each change is almost impossible to quatify as we're largely unaware of what most genes do, then you have gene regulatory networks, then you have the fact that we've barely sequenced a millionth of the genomes on the planet, then you'd need to look at variance over a multitude of generations, then you have to look at the trait within the existing environment, etc, etc, etc.

So, for everybody - what citations do you have that have done research on the percentage of mutations in coding sequences of the DNA of any organism that are beneficial, neutral, or harmful?

You can't do that research realistically. Each change is almost impossible to quatify as we're largely unaware of what most genes do, then you have gene regulatory networks, then you have the fact that we've barely sequenced a millionth of the genomes on the planet, then you'd need to look at variance over a multitude of generations, then you have to look at the trait within the existing environment, etc, etc, etc.

There's no way to account for positive, negative, or neutral.

OK - if you are correct, then how can anyone make an assertion that they KNOW that mutations are the mechanism of speciation? Doesn't there need to be both observational and statistical work done before drawing that conclusion?

You pass the buck just like any religious zealot as if it where a burden laid before you to take up.

burden laid before me... you freaking lyricist. What are you talking about? What buck am I passing? Do others besides religious zealots pass bucks, which I'm not? Say something that makes sense please. State some opinion which you think is your own and I will tell you where it really comes from.

First of all, I'm not Ethelred, but you're welcome. To answer your questions, I'm saying most mutations are neutral because most dna appears to be non-coding. A mutation doesn't really care whether the dna codes or not. Those mutations are passed through the generations in the non-coding part of the dna.

Of the DNA that codes, you've still got a lot of leeway before a change makes a difference in what's coded. You can find the codon chart at http://upload.wik...n-2.svg. You'll see many similar codons code for the same amino acid, so many mutations even in coding dna won't do anything. Finally, of those mutations that make a difference in the protein coded, it's a matter of perspective whether what's expressed is positive, negative or neutral. Sickle-cell anemia is generally regarded as a negative mutation, but if you live in a place infested with malaria, it becomes positive.

So, for everybody - what citations do you have that have done research on the percentage of mutations in coding sequences of the DNA of any organism that are beneficial, neutral, or harmful?

You can't do that research realistically. Each change is almost impossible to quatify as we're largely unaware of what most genes do, then you have gene regulatory networks, then you have the fact that we've barely sequenced a millionth of the genomes on the planet, then you'd need to look at variance over a multitude of generations, then you have to look at the trait within the existing environment, etc, etc, etc.

There's no way to account for positive, negative, or neutral.

OK - so if you're right, then what basis is used for asserting that conserved beneficial mutations and neutral mutations are the basis for speciation. Wouldn't observational and statistical research be needed before drawing that conclusion?

then what basis is used for asserting that conserved beneficial mutations and neutral mutations are the basis for speciation.

Because detrimental ones die.

Wouldn't observational and statistical research be needed before drawing that conclusion?

Absolutely would be, which is why we have millions of books and countless billions of pages worth of said observations to confirm the theory.

For example, the coal moths. The mutation resulting in a darker color would die on the pristine white birch trees of England as it would be seen rather easily by birds and wind up as a food item(predatory selection).

When the industrial revolution began coal burning and the formerly white trees because sooty and grey/brown in appearance, these darker moths now camoflaged, while the white moths would quickly become a snack item for birds.

So which gene is the beneficial one, the darker body gene or the white body gene? Answer is, neither. Depends on environment and more.

You want something that makes sense, otto? You are a religious zealot. You are religious because there is no evidence for any of the beliefs you espouse. When challenged to produce evidence, you cast dispersions, claim the burden of evidence doesn't lie on you, and make proclamations that are either tautologies, or completely unprovable. You are a zealot because you think your beliefs are unassailable fact, that those who challenge them are obviously under the sway of your self-proclaimed enemies, and that they give you sufficient rational justification to advocate for genocide and eugenics. In the end, you are no different than a Lutheran denouncing Catholicism.

@skeptic_heritic: I'm sorry, I'm not talking about the general writings on evolution, nor the general literature concerning adaption and population selection through survival of the fittest. I am specifically asking for studies that attempt to quantify the relative percentage of beneficial, neutral, and harmful mutations to the coding portion of the DNA of any organism.

As to the coal moths - that is NOT an example of the conservation of a mutation, but an example of the how traits that both common in a species can be conserved or not conserved under an environmental change. The relative percentage of white moths and dark moths change in the population due to environmental factors.

"The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live...This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must END their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves... protest; for to do otherwise is to be an enabler... of the true devils of extremism who draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers... Thats it; grow up, or die." etc. Bill Maher

Poor Otto, he is but playing a role. It is not of his own will he speaks but of the role he has been given. He is SUPPOSED to speak out at this time because it is what the times demand him to do. To gather with the others to put an end to the greatest threat the world has ever seen, religionists...

What are you talking about? What buck am I passing? Do others besides religious zealots pass bucks, which I'm not?

This is not societies doing, this is not the work of the times you live in nor the "role" life has given you, this is you. By stating such things you are doing the exact mental gymnastics every religious zealot does by putting the burden of their guilt upon the divine will of god and not his own.

But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous,

Oppression does not stop oppression, it only leads to greater conflict and violence. The faithful twist oppression to justify their actions, their "ROLES", so they can feel comfortable at night just as you do.

Poor arkaine, he is playing a role but is too ego-driven to be able to admit it. So he attacks others who uncomfortably point this out to him.

This is not societies doing, this is not the work of the times you live in nor the "role" life has given you, this is you. By stating such things you are doing the exact mental gymnastics every religious zealot does by putting the burden of their guilt upon the divine will of god and not his own.

@ Thrasymachus: you said "Finally, of those mutations that make a difference in the protein coded, it's a matter of perspective whether what's expressed is positive, negative or neutral. Sickle-cell anemia is generally regarded as a negative mutation, but if you live in a place infested with malaria, it becomes positive."Only relatively. The life expectency of a man with that condition is shortened to 42 years. In every other set of conditions it is maladaptive.I realize that I am asking for something pretty specific here, but if there is no observational, experimental data to back it up, or CAN'T be because the whole matter is so complex, then what basis is there for claiming that 'benefical' mutations are the fundamental mechanism for evolutionary speciation? The math has to work.

"The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live...This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must END their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves... protest; for to do otherwise is to be an enabler... of the true devils of extremism who draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers... Thats it; grow up, or die." etc. Bill Maher

This is the difference between your ideas... and mine. I have no quotes to give you from men on television or from any books. My ideas are amassed among 20 years of personal study as well as university study of Computer Science (oddly is very related), Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, and Physics as well as man studies of religion and culture. Great Comedians, Artist, and Musicians. I have chosen my own influences and I do not displace my actions upon them. I am sure Bill Maher would be appalled by your statements and conclusions made using his own words, but I am not bill Maher

Speciation can occur in a population without any mutations occurring whatsoever. Errors in reproduction that include too many chromosomes or leave some out in the offspring, or reverse whole lines of dna, or even just divergent selection without any new genetic information being added can result in new species. And keep in mind that there really is no such thing as "species." There is a single population of living things, some sub-groups of which are more or less reproductively isolated from other sub-groups. Mutation is the source of fundamentally new genetic information. Selection of dna is the fundamental mechanism for evolutionary speciation, mutation just gives more material for selection to work on.

There's a long way from challenging other's faith in terms of its reasonableness and culpability in the worst historical human tragedies, to advocating that anybody who has a faith ought to be culled in order to make way for a New World Order of science and peace, and will be anyway because of the secret manipulations of a cabal of superpowerful conspirators whose traditions stretch unbroken to the beginnings of human history, and of whom no consistent evidence can be found because its perpetrators were too smart, despite being human beings fully embedded in the culture of their times. One of them is actually effective in combating the influence and depredations of organized religion. The other is just as much a silly fairy tale as those it seeks to combat, and actually harms the effort to get mankind to take responsibility for itself, instead of foisting that responsibility off on make-believe.

@Thrasymachus: you said "Mutation is the source of fundamentally new genetic information. Selection of dna is the fundamental mechanism for evolutionary speciation, mutation just gives more material for selection to work on"OK, I am trying to not to get involved in the semantics. Given that there is the assertion that mutation is the source of new material for selection to work on - and that this 'new material' is essentially random, and only potentially useful if it occurs in the coding part of DNA. What is the percentage of beneficial (steps 'forward'), neutral (stay put),and harmful (steps 'back')? I know that this depends of the micro-environmet to some degree, but there is a fairly large percentage of environment which is macro. If an organism is undergoing mutation, then the cumulative effect has to be 'forward' for there to be a new organism eventually. Does experimental science show that there tends to be more steps 'forward' than 'back' from mutations of the coding DNA?

I am sure Bill Maher would be appalled by your statements and conclusions made using his own words

Seriously, you are reading things into my posts that I did not put there which I do not appreciate. Bill Maher says:Religionism must end in total because no religion is benign, religious belief in any form enables the worst to do their work, religionists have neurological problems, religions will kill us all, etc.

Neither bill nor I ever called for culling or gassing or killing of religionists in any way whatsoever, no matter what the fanatic frajo claims. We only point out the inevitability of religionists doing these things to themselves and everybody else, if they are not stopped.

to advocating that anybody who has a faith ought to be culled in order to make way for a New World Order of science and peace

Nobody said this twit. They will be doing their best to do this to each other, no doubt. Twit.

You don't have to have more positive or neutral mutations than negative mutations to result in speciation. You don't, strictly speaking, need any changes in the structure of the genome at all to result in a new species. All you need is reproductive isolation and selection, and simple geography can provide that. I'm not sure what you mean by micro vs. macro environment. There are parts of the environment which tend to change more rapidly, and parts which tend to change more slowly. Different aspects have more prominence in certain habitats than others. What is a "step forward" in one habitat may be a step "backward" in another.

a cabal of superpowerful conspirators whose traditions stretch unbroken to the beginnings of human history, and of whom no consistent evidence can be found because its perpetrators were too smart, despite being human beings fully embedded in the culture of their times.

Pretty cool, huh? Id have thought youd appreciate the philosophy behind it at least. Ecc3, proper time for everything, no? So beautiful.

And there is plenty of evidence which I like to point out all the time. Like the bible. All about conquest and revolution. Thats where youll find the bulk of the evidence- in the midst of wars, in their preparation and aftermath, where it becomes obvious that all the strange occurances and mysteries were actually to enable the most beneficial of outcomes to occur.

But guys like you and frajo and the other dweebs wont look there- war is too icky. Best to accept the pap that it was all just another horrible mistake and go back to reading your Keats.

-But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar because it is based on nothing REAL and is constructed on principles of exclusionism and elitism and reproductive opportunism, which all major religions are. Dont you agree?

Therefore Otto.. you should oppress yourself. Your belief system has the potential to degenerate into something dangerous, based on nothing real and is constructed on the basis of exclusion-ism and elitism.

the plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live...This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must END their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves... protest; for to do otherwise is to be an enabler... of the true devils of extremism who draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers... Thats it; grow up, or die." etc. Bill Maher

This is obviously telling me to kill the religious... right? I mean after all Bill Maher said religion should die, and you said its okay to oppress "when they believe in something inherently dangerous". And because you believe in something inherently dangerous you yourself should also be oppressed and killed right?

Eugenics is Inevitable, given that humans have had 20k+ yrs experience with husbandry and that Rulers would have wanted to breed undesirable traits, if anything, out of their flocks.

-But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous,

Religionism should be regarded as one malignant, self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating menace.

No religion is safe, all must go.

And these just within this thread, otto, you supporting the genocide of the religious, painting them as irredeemable and deserving to be destroyed, excusing it by calling it culling for your New World Order. This doesn't help those of us who would like to see religion destroyed on the merits, rather than as they destroy themselves.

Actually he didn't do that. Well he said it and then said, immediatly thereafter, that we are all children of god, presumbably Jehovah. So he wasn't saying that his actual parent was Jehovah rather than Joseph.

you may enjoy reading a work by a former atheist

Lewis was conning himself. He was NOT an Atheist. Most definitly not Agnostic, as we are more rational. Only a believer can be pissed off at god. He was mad at his idea of god so he denied it. Not even close to actual disbelief.

Of cours not Otto. It is rather hard to follow oneself. Jesus was Jewish as there is nothing in the Bible that even implies that Jesus was starting a new religion. That seems to have been Paul's doing.

At the moment, right? Not violent NOW

I don't think the Amish are going to become violent anytime soon. Annoying they already are but that is not a crime. Preemptive strikes against people that are not arming to go to war with you is for BLEEPS.

Accepting one enables them all and ensures inevitable violence. You agree with this or not?

No. I am not a BLEEP. That sort of thinking is for BLEEPS.

Quit being a BLEEP Otto. Leave that sort crap to the irrational. Or quit pretending to be rational.

1) Could you please supply a reference for your assertion that most mutations are neutral? I mean, how would you know if it didn't express somatically?

The Human Genome project shows a number of variants in particular genes. And LOTS of variants in areas that don't seem to be expressed. Prior to actually knowing the entire genomes it was still a reasonable guess but now we can see the actual variations. Heck YOU can see some minor variants with your own eyes. All those variations on just how blue someone's eyes are or the depth of the brown eyes, though those ARE expressed.

2)What would be the relative ratio of retained and not retained 'neutral' mutations?

Don't know. I read a while ago that computer simulations have been done. It would depend on where the mutation occured for one thing. Mutations in most of the Y chromosome would remain as long as there were male offspring.

The Bible does NOT claim the Jesus is god. Also there could be multiple gods which allow Jesus the son of one god without either being a god himself or the son of the only god.

There are more ways to look at religion than yours. Believers are big on false dichotomies. Christians for instance are NOT all Trinitarians. Take the members of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society for instance.

No, really take them. Keep them away from the buss stops.

. Other's beliefs about Jesus have nothing to do with what Jesus himself claimed.

True. So, why do YOU think he was god. The Bible makes NO such claim. So since he didn't believe it why do you?

He is either a liar, a madman, or He is God.

Now that one is just plain wrong. A false TRICHOTOMY. He NEVER claimed to be god.

This strikes me as, probably, a critical question as the only mechanism being cited for Darwinian or neo-Darwinian speciation is this mutational mechanism.

No. You are ignoring the KEY mechanism. Selection by the environment. Which includes sexual selection as a subset of the environment.

And the usual estimate I have seen for humans is that the average human has three or four mutations.

OK - if you are correct, then how can anyone make an assertion that they KNOW that mutations are the mechanism of speciation?

I certainly didn't make that assertion. Selection AND separation of gene pools are pretty clearly the mechanisms involved. Isolated groups can become sufficiently different from the main group to form a new species. Genetic drift via the Founder Effect seems to drive much of speciation.

Doesn't there need to be both observational and statistical work done before drawing that conclusion?

And I could not find your usage of BLEEP; but if it means the rejection whole classes of institutions whose bylaws demand reproductive aggression and violence in the defense of insane belief systems, then myself, bill maher, Richard Dawkins, some guy named hitchens, and legions of others are proudly and unapologetically BLEEPs. We also hate Nazis but do admit they were snazzy dressers.

Therefore Otto.. you should oppress yourself. Your belief system has the potential to degenerate into something dangerous, based on nothing real and is constructed on the basis of exclusion-ism and elitism.

More baffling illogic from a (self-professed) intelligent individual. I've given lots of evidence of action as well as a philosophy which gives meaning to those actions. Humans and their Plans- no gods. And bill maher said that religions must die- not the carriers of them. But history shows us that they usually will martyr themselves over apostasy- because god demands it.

No I think bill is obviously telling anti-religionists to protest... Because that's what he says.

I mean after all Bill Maher said religion should die, and you said its okay to oppress "when they believe in something inherently dangerous".

Let me state that I have never met bill maher and that we are not colluding to kill people. Did you watch the clip yet? Watch the whole series- let me know if you can't understand any of the subtitles.

The relative percentage of white moths and dark moths change in the population due to environmental factors.

BINGO. The ENVIRONMENT is the FACTOR driving change. Mutation just supplies the RANDOM raw material.

Only relatively. The life expectency of a man with that condition is shortened to 42 years.

Only for those with TWO copies, and 42 is high, most people die before reproducing. However with one copy life expectancy is increased. Which is why there are so many people with the mutation. One copy good two copies bad. Produce enough offspring and one copy is better than none. Pretty nasty for the people with two but evolution is a amoral process. Not immoral amoral. Morality is not involved. Just survival.

what basis is there for claiming that 'benefical' mutations are the fundamental mechanism for evolutionary speciation?

Beneficial IS environment specific. Different environments REQUIRE different mutations. Mutation DO occur. Selection DOES happen. Isolation DOES happen. Thus speciation in unavoidable.

For instance large lungs are expensive metabolically. So most humans have lungs that good enough for sea level BUT humans living at high altitude have genes for larger lungs. Also for blood changes that can be maladaptive at sea level.

SELECTION is the fundamental mechnisim. Why do insist on claiming that mutation is?

See BINGO again.

OK, I am trying to not to get involved in the semantics.

You seem to be trying to avoid SELECTION. Presumably to pretend that evolution is random.

Thras, Eth, and SH: Not to sound like the evolution denier mabirch, but following from his questionable line of reasoning...Where do the "major ecological changes" fit in? In my eyes, the discussion of good/bad/neutral falls off in that many are probably lost in the turmoil of these change events. Bad expressions/mutations that are truly detrimental will not survive, but the good and neutral, per Matthew's theory, look to be selected by environmental catastrophes as much as long-term competition.

Where do the "major ecological changes" fit in? In my eyes, the discussion of good/bad/neutral falls off in that many are probably lost in the turmoil of these change events.

They change the environment. Often by wiping out huge numbers of finely tuned species thus opening the way for mutations that would otherwise be selected out by more efficient competitors. New proteins don't have to be perfectly efficient if there is no other species competing for the same resources. Mediocrity thus has a chance to be tuned by the new environment instead of being wiped out immediately.

@Ethelred: I suspect that I am being unclear as you have persisted in answering questions that I am definitely not asking and making statements that don't seem to be related. I will try once more. Mutations that can be inherited are a small percentage of all mutations. Those that can be inherited may provide some adaptive advantage. (Almost all those cited here and elsewhere seem to be a breaking of current genetic information, not the addition of new. I would be really interested in seeing information on novel genetic code that is beneficial - by observation.) Some percentage has no discernible effect on the organism - which can therefore provide no adaptive value. Some percentage both causes changes and those changes are deleterious to the organism. If mutations are random, and the deleterious mutations accumulate, observably, at a greater rate than beneficial mutations, over time the net is deleterious. Or the opposite is true. (To continue)

@Pyle: You said "Thras, Eth, and SH: Not to sound like the evolution denier mabirch, but following from his questionable line of reasoning..."

Oddly enough, all I have done is ask for a reference to some sort of study - fruit flies, bacteria, etc - where actual cummulative mutations are induced, observed for effect, and categorized as beneficial, neutral, or negative. With a statistical analysis.

The reason I am doing this is that mutational change to the genome is continuously invoked as the source of new genetic code that allows new somatic traits to be selected for survival. I want to know what observational work has been done to support that contention. What, exactly, is your problem with that?

@Ethelred: To continue - You say that environmental changes, population isolation, and other factors cause selection - got that. Darwin's finches. As the weather changes the relative percentages of beak and body types change - but they change BACK when the weather changes BACK. No new species because the genetic code hasn't changed or been truncated or whatever. So if the genetic code is changed (not truncated or crossed from another organism - after all, where did that genetic code come from?)mutations are the proposed mechanism for that change. I'm really just asking for the genetic study or studies where cumulative mutations are shown to have the net effect that leads to the outcome of this previously unavailable genetic code being expressed in a viable organism which code was brought about by mutations.

@Ethelred one last time. You stated that such things as larger lung capacity and even eye color are MUTATIONS that have been conserved - did I understand that right? By implication that many (all?) variation among humans are expressed mutations that have been conserved? On what basis do you make that assertion?

TO ALL - I don't think this group is going to be able to provide me any citations that I can research for myself. I have read many of Dawkin's books and I'm sorry - he doesn't either.

That study you're asking for would be pointless, as it wouldn't tell us anything useful. And in fact, you've got several things wrong. Most mutations are passed on, because they're mutations in non-coding dna. Non-coding dna is replicated and passed on just the same as coding dna. Of those mutations that occur in coding dna, most of them don't do anything at all, as the most likely changes result in precisely the same amino acid being coded. Of the small proportion that are left that change the amino acid the codon codes for, most of those don't change the functionality of the protein, or do so only slightly, which can result in minor phenotypic variation or none at all. All such mutations can accumulate in a population. Of the infinitesimally small group left, changes in the amino acid that result in radically different proteins, most will be lethal, and thus not accumulate.

@mabirch - We have a problem of time and ability. We haven't had enough time with the means to study the DNA sequences to have completed the studies you're suggesting.

Do we have indirect evidence that mutations occur and that environmental changes trigger speciation? Yes. In abundance.

Have we studied all of the genetic code of the family trees evidenced in the fossil record to develop a set of statistics for all gene mutations and expressions with success and failure rates and specific environmental trigger events? Of course not.

I apologize if you were just suggesting future research areas, but it sure felt like E, T, and SH were arguing with a denier.

Furthermore, mutation rates vary across reproductively isolated groups of living things (I refuse to use the term species in this discussion any longer as it has no scientific meaning). Since most mutations that make a difference are lethal, cells have evolved dna repair mechanisms, in fact, the double stranded nature of dna is a check against the effects of mutation. And finally, mutation in terms of amino acid substitution isn't the only way to get new dna that codes for selection to work on. Errors in replication can copy the same strand of dna twice as a single strand, it can transpose whole sections so they look like they're written backwards. Non-coding dna can suddenly become coding if a mutation in the stop codon occurs.

And there's a whole lot that occurs between the genome and the phenotypic expression that is just not known right now. But the fact that it is unknown is not evidence against Darwinian evolution.

Just thought I'd add something to the mix with all this genetic mutation talk. Traits can also manifest without a change in the genetic code through a process known as epigenetics (or how the genome is expressed). So you could have identical twins (identical genes), but one develops cancer and the other does not. Epigenetic changes are influenced by the environment, nutrition and behavioural factors and can be passed on to the next generation.

It is still absolutely amazing, your complete and utter lack of sense and wisdom. It doesn't matter what you mean to say, your own words can easily be used to draw the conclusion that you want the genocide of all religious people. This is the same kind of thing that is done with religious systems. Your crusade against religion is no different than any other religious crusade and your beliefs can be used in the exact same way as a religion to spur genocide. To say something so foolish as "Oppression is okay" is simply irresponsible, and the same goes for Bill Maher saying "religion should die". You inability to see this makes you truly no different than any other religious zealot.

suspect that I am being unclear as you have persisted in answering questions that I am definitely not asking

I am giving you the answers you NEED to understand. The questions you ask are because you don't understand what to ask. Or rather the questions you ask appear to be aimed at avoiding the conclusion that Evolution is real instead of understanding how it works.

You are fixated on random mutation and that IS NOT the key. Selection is. If the damn 1000 word limit had not forced me to cut out several lines that would have been even more clear. So this will go on as many posts as it takes.

First there ARE experiments that give us enough information to see what is going on. There are NOT enough to prove it to a fundamentalist. NOTHING would be enough. Jehovah could stand 800 feet tall over the smoking corpse of Oral Roberts proclaiming Darwin 'Genius of All History' and it wouldn't be enough.

TwoGene sequencing enough people to get certain answers about the percentages of good vs bad vs neutral will take a long time and a serious decrease in the cost. Plus we will need to know how all those genes and RNA bits work to know which are which. Without that it is very had to know what mutations were actually good. Even then Fundamentalists will just claim Jehovah created it all like that. Even with smoking corpses of Televangelist on every channel and a Jehovah Loves Dawkins 24/7 channel hosted by rotating Avatars of Jehovah, as in a Son, a Holy Spirit and a Hairy Thunderer.

That would be over the top.

Now to deal with details.

Mutations that can be inherited are a small percentage of all mutations.

Maybe. Those that stop reproduction would indeed be selected out in the initial generation. The rest can be inherited. Those that are maladaptive WOULD BE SELECTED OUT. This is the key idea you are just plain not getting. SELECTION IS THE KEY.

I would be really interested in seeing information on novel genetic code that is beneficial - by observation.

There are some experiments but without using species with a completely known sequence there is no way to know if the changes were from mutations rather than genes that had been switched off. I don't know if any tests have been done with completely known genomes. That has only recently become possible and may still not be feasible due to the need to nail down a single strain or more likely a SET of strains.

If mutations are random, and the deleterious mutations accumulate

If wishes were horses John Wayne would have been a millionaire. No, wait he was.

This what I was trying to get across to you. THEY DON'T ACCUMULATE. They get SELECTED OUT. That is why SELECTION IS THE KEY. Not mutation. Mutation is just the raw material. The Stone Before the Artiste starts cutting.

Cumulative is the hard part. TIME - Eli, MONEY TIME, TIME MONEY. (From The Stunt Man - Producer to the Director) Lots of time. It has been done with computer programs and electronic circuits. You can do the PC experiments yourself if you want.

ou say that environmental changes, population isolation, and other factors cause selection - got that

Not quite. I said they result in speciation VIA selection. Changed or not selection comes from the environment. If there is no change in the environment then an already optimized species isn't going to show much change.

Not really, they CHANGE but not back. They may get to something similar as the conditions would be similar but the actual genes would be different. Mutations are random thus the changes would be unlikely to result in the exact sames genes as before. Also the concept of isolation is involved. When change occurs it drives marginal gene pools to extinction.

For instance during a drought on one of the islands in the last century a species of finch lost the middle of the beak genes. That is the smooth graph from large to small got a double bump instead of the previous single hump. Only the small beaks and the larges beaks were surviving. If the weather had continued that way long enough it is likely the one species would have become two.

Again it is the raw material of change. Which mutations survive is via selection. Even in a species with an unchanging environment. There pretty much all mutations would be detrimental and thus mutations would NOT accumulate. They would nearly all be selected out.

outcome of this previously unavailable genetic code

There are kinds of mutations than just single point mutations. Though even those can be significant. A single point mutation in a homeobox gene controlling, say limb growth time, could result either dwarfism or longer legs. Somewhere on the net there is a picture of a dead, via gunshot, animal that looked like a very long legged cougar. No, not the kind on Brazzeers porn site. The cat. That would not require a large number of mutations. Just a few or even just one in the right place.

The main problem with what you are asking for is TIME. We haven't been around doing science long enough to get accumulated testing done. A great deal of patience would be needed even with C. Elegens to get accumulated results. Single changes are no big deal. Those we got.

The key mutations would be:

Single points accumulated over time in key proteins.Single points in homeobox genes that control growth and timing.Stuttering along sections.Duplication of genes. Especially in sexually reproducing species.

In a sexually reproducing species most genes have to copies. Many have more, such as the genes for eye pigment. Simply getting more functioning copies of a gene can have significant effect on their own. Such as those eye pigments.

Eight and more to goThe key with duplication though is that the new copies are free to change because there is still a copy able to to the old job. This can be seen in human hemoglobin where we have NINE different variants of the gene. ALL of us. Only one variant is active in humans after birth. That one compound is made up of the two copies of two different molecules and it is obvious that one of the molecules is a variant of the other. Which came first is a guess. My guess is the smaller was the original. Or rather closer to the original.

Duplications and stutters can be bad or good. Skin pigment can be good. Huntington's is a bad one.

You stated that such things as larger lung capacity and even eye color are MUTATIONS that have been conserved - did I understand that right?

? By implication that many (all?) variation among humans are expressed mutations that have been conserved?

Yes. Not many, ALL. There is simply no reason to assume otherwise. Anything else is assuming that we cannot understand what is going on. As long as it all fits there is no reason to think we have it wrong. So far it fits. No signs of intervention, except by viruses.

Why would I assume otherwise? To support Dr. Behe? He is full of it. Makes the sames mistake EVERY BLOODY chapter. He doesn't want to know how things could have happened without a god so he just plain claims that it couldn't.

don't think this group is going to be able to provide me any citations that I can research for myself.

Heh. Already did. That link above to an experiment YOU can make. And here are two sites with lots of sources. Many the same of course.

Done at last done at last I am not Winston Bloody Churchill but I am done at last.

I have read many of Dawkin's books and I'm sorry - he doesn't either.

Actually he does. An Ancestor's Tale has some pretty good stuff if I remember correctly. However the stuff you are asking for is relatively recent. So you will have to go on the links at those sites above. They DO HAVE such things. Heck this site has stuff.

I am not aware of ANY testing that deals with fully known genomes before and after. The ability to do this is VERY recent. As in this last few years and still would be VERY expensive. Of course you can do the PC testing with Avida for the cost of your own PC and personal time.

Bad genes do not accumulate. Good genes do. That is the product of Selection. Which is why I kept mentioning it. It is something that simply cannot, not happen. All you have to do is extend it over time and toss in isolation to get speciation.

Let's see... Otto says he thinks religions should end because of the trouble they cause and most people besides religious extremists might think he means that maybe they should just go fishing or down to the mall on Sundays instead of worshipping vapors.

But arkaine thinks this means otto is a vicious GENOCIDAL Nazi-type. Otto is perplexed; the only killing, he points out, is invariably done by religionists themselves. So he posts a mainstream movie made by a decidedly non-genocidal critic of religion who says essentially the same things as otto does. Arkaine labels him too a vicious GENOCIDAL Nazi-type when obviously he is not.Cont

Bill maher is even a comedian, and arkaine says he likes to learn important things from comedians; maybe he doesn't think bills jokes are funny and so must want to kill people?

At any rate it seems we can conclude that the only extremist fanatic here is the one who considers criticism of religions, to the extent that they should end (or be destroyed??) as threats of GENOCIDE by Nazi-types no matter what that criticism is, which is arkaine. He even appears to include himself in this category, which is the kind of schizoid reasoning typical of the fanatic religionist.

The question is, why is arkaine defending religion with the same extremist irrational fervor of an ayatollah or a talibaner? Is he a closet religionist himself? Or is he is simply some dimwit adolescent who enjoys baiting people and getting 5/5s for it? The latter would be my guess but I am not certain of this.

Okay, Otto, I'm going to assume I am talking to your rational personality. I get this one every now and then and it throws me for a loop when it comes out.

You see Otto, it is okay to want to put an end to religion, but it is the words we choose to bring about this end that make the difference. When you say things like "religion should be regarded as a malignant tumor" it paints a picture that it should be destroyed with massive dosages of radiation. Or when you say that "Opression is okay when people believe in something dangerous" right after speaking about the dangers of religion. It paints a certain violent picture. Similar phrases have been used in religion to justify their actions of violence.

And again... I get it, religious group A may think they are being oppressed because we said you can't stone women anymore. You and I know, from our perspective, thats not oppression thats improvement.

In case you missed it, here is my qualifier on my oppression statement:

-They feel western sanctions are oppression. They feel that others who hold conflicting beliefs are oppressing them just by existing. So they consider whatever it is we do to oppose their sickness oppression anyway, even if we do not.

The operative word here is 'unjust'. Any rejection or criticism of religionists is regarded as unjust and thusly as oppression by them. But they still need to be rejected and they still need to be criticized despite what the namecallers would label these actions.

-who tones down his message because his life has been threatened by radical religionist extremists of the sort you seem willing to defend.

The message is the same. Religions are a direct threat to the survival of humanity, and religionists will tell you this as they did in Mahers video. And unless reasonable people begin stating the obvious, in no uncertain terms, that religion must END, our own destruction is all but assured.

@ethelred: While you obviously feel that your response is all that is needed to address my questions, and also feel that I must be some sort of 'fundamentalist' if I don't agree that your explanation is sufficient - I continue to see your assertions as insufficient. I will also note that I have been polite and courteous, you have resorted to name calling and the default position that anybody who looks at the facts and draws different conclusions than you is deficient in some fashion. I wish you well in your obvious olympian superiority.

Thanks for the links, I will go there in the hope that there are observational experiments to follow up.

The sad thing here otto, and the only reason I permit myself to be occasionally drawn into these pointless online spats with you, is that you're clever enough to know what you're doing. You see other atheists and agnostics challenge the religious fanatics on here all the time without needing to resort to the insanity and hyperbole your espouse. Yet when one or more of these atheists and agnostics challenge your imagination, you lump them in with religionists and start calling names. You don't even try to understand religion, you simply denounce it. You claim you do, but when challenged you once again resort to name-calling and insults. No serious atheist or agnostic or scientist thinks that's the appropriate way to respond to criticism. You turn the very methods of the faithful against them, but to a serious atheist or agnostic, it is those methods that deserve attack, not the people who use them.

Otto, keep screaming.The planet has what, 3-4 billion irrational believers on it. They are either poorly educated and religion is doing its job controlling them, or they aren't and it is even scarier why they ignore reality and believe in whatever it is they do. They out breed us. In the US the right has used religion to rape the poor and middle class. It IS time to use strong words.

Benign religion, if it truly exists, is a vast minority. I am afraid for me and my hopefully atheist children.

I do want to see religion destroyed, but not the religious. Religion is a method of thinking and relating oneself to the world through adherence to unprovable or blatantly false beliefs. The religious are those who use that method. I would undermine that method and attack its appeal for those who use it. I would not undermine or attack the people who use it. The fact that you continually blur the distinction between the two, otto, shows that you're either in it for the lulz, or you like being able to advocate for genocide and then be able to backtrack and finger-point when someone calls you out on it, or your actually a closet religionist pretending to attack religion with ridiculous hyperbole in order to undermine agnostic and atheist positions.

I said 'end'. You said 'destroyed'. Maher said 'die'. But out of these 3 opinions you butt monkeys think only otto wishes mass executions, even though his is the most benign. Could this be because ottos nick is german and he writes in german sometimes? Then otto is in the right in calling you bigots.

As far as the term 'butt monkey' goes, Team Frajo here seems to like traveling in a pack. Frajo drops an irrational

You use different wording, but essentially you talk nazi talk. (Replace "Jews" by "believers".)

-and die Pudel attack, without even reading ottos posts, as arkaine admits arf arf. And they get a 5/5 biscuit for it. So otto feels justified in calling you butt monkeys.cont

As far as screaming goes, I see no upper-case rants but much hyperbole

It is still absolutely amazing, your complete and utter lack of sense and wisdom...makes you truly no different than any other religious zealot...like being able to advocate for genocide

For a philo-lover TH, you seem to have yet to master the art of word math (logic); nowhere has otto said he thinks killing is warranted and has even said that religion must end to prevent further killing. But, like a bigot fanatic, you and frajo both add this up to get otto = nazi-type. Your philosophy resembles something from the gutter or the OT.

I would not undermine or attack the people who use it.

Please. We have all read your onslaughts of marjon which are indeed personal. And you personally attack me for sharing views similar to yours simply because I indulge in a little alternative political speculation from time to time. And expose philo for the poop it is.

The planet has what, 3-4 billion irrational believers on it. They are either poorly educated and religion is doing its job controlling them, or they aren't and it is even scarier why they ignore reality and believe in whatever it is they do. They out breed us. In the US the right has used religion to rape the poor and middle class. It IS time to use strong words.

Benign religion, if it truly exists, is a vast minority. I am afraid for me and my hopefully atheist children.

So if you agree with me, 5/5 me once in awhile. Otto prefers strudel but will take biscuits.

I used to 5 you otto, until I learned how deeply perverse your views are. There's a big difference between insulting someone (and I have never claimed to be above insulting idiots) and advocating violence against them. Though you're usually pretty good at being cute in your advocacy, so you can go back and say "What me? I never explicitly said that." It's rather like listening to Rush Limbaugh play "Barack the Magic Negro" and then get all indignant because someone calls him racist.

I'll make my problem with you more explicit, maybe then you'll get it. You have many conclusions about religion that I agree are correct. But your method of getting to those conclusions is as backwards as any religionist. You do not understand the things you attack, and when your lack of understanding is pointed out to you insult and smear. You paint with too broad a brush and because of that fail to stay within the bounds of reasonableness. And I am not frajo or Arcain, so check your quotes.

The point is, you like TH like branding people like me homocidal maniacs because you enjoy it.

no... I am branding you a "homicidal maniac" because you are dangerous and continuously fail to see why. The way you speak is just as dangerous as the way all religious extremist speak and either directly or indirectly that speak cause violence and hate.

The point is, you like TH like branding people like me homocidal maniacs because you enjoy it.

no... I am branding you a "homicidal maniac" because you are dangerous and continuously fail to see why. The way you speak is just as dangerous as the way all religious extremist speak and either directly or inadvertently that speak cause violence and hate.

And you too are a liar. Me and Bill Maher both think so. Ive never said anything different than he does in his movie, or for that matter what dawkins says in his books, and they do not advocate violence either.

Well, now that we've all devolved into calling each other liars, I'm done. There's no convincing people like you, otto, because you're already convinced you're right. No amount of argument, no facts or evidence, nothing anybody could do would ever convince you that you're mistaken in how you approach and characterize the problem of religion and religious people. You fail even to try to understand the role of historical investigations into the function and structure of logic and perception. Your obstinacy is rivaled only by the religious fanatics you claim you oppose.

You fail even to try to understand the role of historical investigations into the function and structure of logic and perception. Your obstinacy is rivaled only by the religious fanatics you claim you oppose.

I simply understand the process of evolution. For some reason even some people in biology claim that can't be done. It can. Knowing all the details cannot be done but the basics of the process are really pretty simple.

Mutations occur.Selection occurs.Thus Evolution MUST occur.

Even most fundamentalists have given up claiming that there is NO evolution.

I will go there in the hope that there are observational experiments to follow up

I don't think you will find any that fit your specifications. However there ARE lots of experiments.

The main reason I think you are not clear on how evolution works is this:

If mutations are random, and the deleterious mutations accumulate

They DON'T accumulate. Selection removes them. Your only response to all I wrote was to accuse me of name calling and then you went on to engage in condescension instead of responding to anything I really said.

Maybe he even knows the speeches of Horst Mahler, a present-day German former anarchist lawyer now turned nazi leader whose preaching carefully avoids any advocating of crimes. His followers nevertheless understand his intentions very well.

Frajos database would certainly be helpful in showing that my fascination with history is only in my desire to understand it, and that I believe the source of understanding can only be found in the violence which plagues it.

I can also understand how this might disturb Frajo. But looking at these things and discussing them enthusiastically does not make one a proponent or a practitioner of them. When someone is equated to Nazis for doing this it allows shallow people like TM to pronounce them murderers and want to lynch them.

Your religion has taught you to do this Frajo, to reject unpleasant inquiry and accept official explanations, however preposterous they may be. It is why people like TM would reject science for dead philosophy. It is why science today struggles against enforced ignorance of the church. It is how Nazis were able to sell their insanity in the face of reason, and turn an entire nation into an army. It is how the weak are led and the curious are silenced. Cont

I do not, have not, and will not advocate hatred or killing. But I will continue to try to make sense of it, by looking right AT it and accepting the reality of it. And I would appreciate it if you didn't equate me with Nazis because of my curiosity and my theorizing.

Frajo unfortunately won't watch the maher movie because of some irrational fear of videos? But in it he/she would hear exactly the same words otto has used, to describe the same things and reach the same conclusions.

Maher and other antireligionists are decidedly not Nazis, not genocidal maniacs, and yet they all reach the same conclusions that I and others here have- there is no good, no value, no worth in religions and they must end. They are the major source of violence in the world today and there is no reforming or pacifying them. They must die for the world to live, as bill maher says.

Maher and other antireligionists are decidedly not Nazis, not genocidal maniacs, and yet they all reach the same conclusions that I and others here have- there is no good, no value, no worth in religions and they must end.

No, that's not accurate. They evaluate and show that western religion is easily corruptable and encourages ignorance. As such they will naturally end when we promote rational thought, as they did during the enlightenment.

Similar misreads of Nietzche led to rampant racism and bigotry. That is what the posters above are attempting to show you. Extremism in any mode of thought leads to detrimental actions and rampant credulity leads to destruction.

So you want to derail this thread yet again? I already fought and won this battle. I need only cite the many behavioral and neurological studies which provide conclusive evidence of the biological basis of the function of perception and how the brain processes sensory input which negates and renders immaterial all the non-scientific discussion of it in the absence of it.

I would also defer to the many scientists like hawking who can look at the vast body of philosophical work and conclude that it all took place in the absence of knowledge of how the brain functions, and rightly conclude that it is not only dead but it was never alive, having been based on nonexistent things like the metaphysical and god.

No, that's not accurate. They evaluate and show that western religion is easily corruptable and encourages ignorance.

So it's clear SH didn't watch Mahers movie where he specifically states these things?

Similar misreads of Nietzche led to rampant racism and bigotry. That is what the posters above are attempting to show you.

You are playing the apologist. Is the sin in the honest inquiry or the dishonest misreading of it? It's pretty clear the posters are accusing me of being something I am not because I engage in discussion of things which they are afraid of, and reach conclusions they do not like. But many of these same conclusions are shared by people who are decidedly not malevolent, including yourself.

I do not, have not, and will not advocate hatred or killing. But I will continue to try to make sense of it, by looking right AT it and accepting the reality of it.

that is a good thing.

But looking at these things and discussing them enthusiastically does not make one a proponent or a practitioner of them.

its not that you are discussing them "enthusiasticaly" it is that you say things like "Opression is okay"... and then only after I slam you on it do you clarify your statement. Would that not also look suspicious if those words came from a Christian or a Muslim?

No, that's not accurate. They evaluate and show that western religion is easily corruptable and encourages ignorance.

-when I was citing what maher concludes at the end of his movie that religion must die for the world to live? This means ALL religions, which the movie makes clear.

You don't reach conclusions. You make demands, which no one is paying attention to because they're as ridiculous as Marjon's demands.

Demands. Name one. You mean 'religion must end' like 'religion should be destroyed' or 'religion must die'? Who have I demanded anything from?

Nope.

Yep. If the poster had meant

Similar misreads of Nietzche led to rampant racism and bigotry. That is what the posters above are attempting to show you.

-Then they would have said so, rather than directly comparing the things I have said to the things goebbels said, and deeming me a Nazi by implication, and by directly calling me GENOCIDAL and a murderer.

-when I was citing what maher concludes at the end of his movie that religion must die for the world to live? This means ALL religions, which the movie makes clear.

Then you obviously haven't watched the movie. I'd like to know when he got into Buddhism and Jainism and the other 180 thousand religions not covered in his diatribe against abrahmic faiths.

Then they would have said so, rather than directly comparing the things I have said to the things goebbels said, and deeming me a Nazi by implication, and by directly calling me GENOCIDAL and a murderer.

Your statements are akin to the ramblings made by NAZI party officials before the Blitzkrieg.

You say they were only trying to caution against the dangers of misreading my posts. You should let them speak for themselves.

I have, and you're not getting it. In this frustration you are becomming hostile, as are some of them.

I've been largely neutral in this conversation because I know you're smart enough to reflect and recognize that from time to time you do go overboard, or at least don't make cautionary statements to prevent that accusation from being tossed upon you. Consider it peer review, and rather than fixing the errors, you're beating the Fred Hoyle drum.

Then you obviously haven't watched the movie. I'd like to know when he got into Buddhism and Jainism and the other 180 thousand religions not covered in his diatribe against abrahmic faiths.

So you're saying he had to specifically attack each religion separately?? His movie contained pictures of many of those religions, including Buddhists. He said 'religion must die'. It's clear this statement meant ALL religion, and is a summation of his intent in the film

Your statements are akin to the ramblings made by NAZI party officials before the Blitzkrieg.

AS WELL AS those of maher and other legitimate critics. Don't you see that?? It is your judgment of this criticism as Nazism which is the DANGER, not the criticism itself.

No, they're telling you that you're pushing the edge of what would be considered rational and heading into the realm of bias and bigotry, as I am.

Then they would have said so, rather than directly comparing the things I have said to the things goebbels said, and deeming me a Nazi by implication, and by directly calling me GENOCIDAL and a murderer.

your own words can easily be used to draw the conclusion that you want the genocide of all religious people. This is the same kind of thing that is done with religious systems. Your crusade against religion is no different than any other religious crusade and your beliefs can be used in the exact same way as a religion to spur genocide.

The way you speak is just as dangerous as the way all religious extremist speak and either directly or indirectly that speak cause violence and hate.

You know the truth is I do want Otto to keep screaming as well, just more intelligently.

If I say "Otto, don't touch the stove because you'll hurt yourself" does that carry the same meaning as "Otto, don't touch the stove OR YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF."

Yeah. In the same manner as a religionist might say 'don't question the bible' or a historian might say 'don't question the official historical record'. Otto will continue to question, and spout, and scare the people who are only yapping little Pudel anklebiters. It's Inevitable dude.

If I say "Otto, don't touch the stove because you'll hurt yourself" does that carry the same meaning as "Otto, don't touch the stove OR YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF."

Yeah. In the same manner as a religionist might say 'don't question the bible' or a historian might say 'don't question the official historical record'. Otto will continue to question, and spout, and scare the people who are only yapping little Pudel anklebiters. It's Inevitable dude.

::Smacks Otto on the nose with a rolled up news paper:: Bad otto bad stay on track!

How does that relate to

SH -

If I say "Otto, don't touch the stove because you'll hurt yourself" does that carry the same meaning as "Otto, don't touch the stove OR YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF."

If I say "Otto, don't touch the stove because you'll hurt yourself" does that carry the same meaning as "Otto, don't touch the stove OR YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF."

Yeah. In the same manner as a religionist might say 'don't question the bible' or a historian might say 'don't question the official historical record'. Otto will continue to question, and spout, and scare the people who are only yapping little Pudel anklebiters. It's Inevitable dude.

Otto would much rather be told how the stove works or figure out himself, rather than be told stove-touching (or self-touching) is taboo. Metaphorically speaking.

Do you see the disconnect now?

Jesus. People are inevitably going to be perturbed by what I want to talk about. So what. Nothing eschatological about that. No otto is not the lamb. No otto has no 4 heads and 20 eyes. No otto is not the whore of Babylon.

Be prepared, a little later I am going to find a reference which proves that maher believes ALL religions must end. And no this does not make me Ezekiel. It just means you will be pwned.

People are inevitably going to be perturbed by what I want to talk about. So what. Nothing eschatological about that. No otto is not the lamb. No otto has no 4 heads and 20 eyes. No otto is not the whore of Babylon.

We... at least I, never said that you where.

(1)I said you are dangerous.

(2)I said your words have the potential to be turned into a weapon that can be used to justify the actions of violence and hate.

(3)I said your words mirror those of an upstart religious zealot trying to recruit people to his cause (refer back to 2).

(4)I even showed you how your own words can be turned into a fuel for hate and violence...

Having read through the latest exchanges, I fail to comprehend: what the hell are you all fighting about? If you refuse to see the difference between ideological confrontation vs. physical massacre, then you've got no right to accuse anyone else of "marjonisms"...

Personally, while I empathize with otto's (and Maher's) sentiments, I recognize that superstition and magical thinking are not going to go extinct any time soon. These are endemic to childhood, and not everyone matures to the same extent. Plus, various people differ in their affinities to contrived mystery, and some will always seek the "supernatural" even if they do admit the utterly quixotic or escapist nature of such pursuits. Some will adopt religion, or even make up their own, just for the sheer poetry, art and symbolism of it. Or they'll appreciate the social club angle of religious congregations. Meditation in itself is beneficial, but probably aided and enhanced by any religious placebo effects. Etc.

Having read through the latest exchanges, I fail to comprehend: what the hell are you all fighting about?

They think I'm a genocidal nazi because I said religions must end. I take issue with that.

I empathize with otto's (and Maher's) sentiments

Thank you sir. You also may agree with Maher when he says:

"Rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price."

-I also take issue with the tone of criticism here in general. I am being shouted down because I say religions are bad? Thats just wrong. Maybe you agree that censorship of this sort is really what nazis were all about?

Rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves

I agree, to an extent. I respond forcefully when someone attempts to force or foist any religion or religious practice upon me, or upon someone else at my expense. However, I won't go around "proselytizing" Atheism, because I personally find proselytizers of all stripes quite offensive and obnoxious. So, just because some people are assholes, doesn't mean I have to join them...

My position is simple: drop the forced indoctrination, expose people to knowledge, and then let the chips fall where they may. Some will end up choosing religion no matter what, and I just don't feel like jumping down their throats is going to help either them or me...

I am being shouted down because I say religions are bad?

I have a slightly different take: religions are neither intrinsically bad, nor good. Though they can and do serve to amplify both the goodness and the evil in people.

-I also take issue with the tone of criticism here in general. I am being shouted down because I say religions are bad? Thats just wrong. Maybe you agree that censorship of this sort is really what nazis were all about?

The reason for my criticism is simple. I am an anti-theist, not because I hate religion, but because I think that if it were true, what a horrible world we'd live in. Each time I hear the religious wave the banner of Atheist oppression, or extremism, I like ot stick it in their face that they are simply projecting.

Some of your statements really weaken that stance overall, but not in regards to me. The reason why I criticize you is that I think you're smarter than this, and I think that sometimes, though perhaps not this time, you go too far even though your intentions are correct.

Each time I hear the religious wave the banner of Atheist oppression, or extremism, I like ot stick it in their face

Yeah, which is why I was so disgusted when recently the pope went around mouthing off in Spain about how Spain’s growing secular­ism will bring rise to the kind of fascism that led to the Spanish Civil War! He criticised 'aggressive secularism' and warned of its dangers:

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion, and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a reductive vision of the person and his destiny

Now that kind of talk truly disgusts me and sends shivers down my spine.

-I also take issue with the tone of criticism here in general. I am being shouted down because I say religions are bad?

no... I repeat once again you are being shouted down for saying things like this:

it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar because it is based on nothing REAL and is constructed on principles of exclusionism and elitism and reproductive opportunism, which all major religions are. Dont you agree?

to which I may ad you did NOT refine until several posts later. Again I ask would this phrase not look just as questionable from an open Religionists, say a Muslim or Christian?

They/I asked you whether you are a nazi. Because some of your statements sound like nazi propaganda.

And some of yours sound like Nazi censorship of dissent.

You said all religion must end but didn't specify by what means.

So did your buddy thrashnuts. You haven't screamed for disclosure from him- is it because he wears the cloak of a liberal, because he is a member of your little party?

Nor did you specify how an individual could prove _not_ to be religious when the Holy Anti-Religious Inquisition threatens to torture him.

It is enough to stand up and say 'this must stop' when confronted with religious-inspired atrocity every day. And it is enough to agree with others when it's obvious that all religions harbor the potential for unspeakable violence, and that there is NO way to ensure that they will not produce it. Like your buddy, I say religions must be destroyed.

YES I did. We live in a society where people are allowed to speak out against abuse. When it is agreed that something needs to be done to stop it, educated minds are gathered to address the problem. I would not know how to solve it but I have confidence that there are people who do, that the solution would be reached in light of public scrutiny, and that the solution would be enforced rationally, equitably, and humanely.

Irrespective of my musings on Hidden Mechanisms at work in the world, I know as do you that THIS is how things get DONE. WE decide, and WE act. And the time, as maher says, to decide and to act is NOW. Whether it has been presented to us in this Manner or not is irrelevant.

It IS interesting that we are facing the type of problem that most likely only a World Govt can properly address. It is bigger than fascism, bigger than communism, and has the potential to cause far more ruin. Another Dark Age. Humans are a crisis-driven species. It requires the biggest Threat for us to make the biggest changes.

It might very well be that the world requires another totalitarian dark age because of the immediate threats from nuclear, biological, and chemical tech. The only freedom to be had might be on the frontier, compelling reasons for the bravest and most ambitious to emigrate off-planet. This would be typical of how it has always been Done.

I mean, the German people were driven to national socialism. Their money was made worthless (the dollar?), people were starving in the streets, and communist cells taking orders directly from Moscow were erupting throughout the country. The middle class could see what was happening to their counterparts in Russia- millions were being killed and carted off to gulags.

The German people were terrified and desperate, and when someone came along who offered a solution, they were ready to accept it.

How much would western peoples have to suffer before they were forced to accept a similar Solution? An implacable, fanatical, ruthless Enemy in their midst, the collapse of their economic systems, mass starvation, disease, unrest; would this be enough?

Meanwhile the most pragmatic and resourceful would have long since packed their bags and headed off to mars.

The German people were terrified and desperate, and when someone came along who offered a solution, they were ready to accept it.

Just a small correction, Hitler was never popular with the people. He was effectively the TEA Party candidate of Germany. His supporters were the loudest and the richest in the country. That is, until he shut down the chancellory and turned on them all.

Now this is scary, because America parallels Nazi Germany today. We see the media becoming marginalized while opinion pieces on FOX tell a story that is so far from the truth it hurts to watch it if you have common sense. You have a group of people doing the exact same thing as the early Nazi sympathizers did. The only difference is, this time Hitler has a vagina, and he's from Alaska.

The German people were terrified and desperate, and when someone came along who offered a solution, they were ready to accept it.

Now this is scary, because America parallels Nazi Germany today. We see the media becoming marginalized while opinion pieces on FOX tell a story that is so far from the truth it hurts to watch it if you have common sense. You have a group of people doing the exact same thing as the early Nazi sympathizers did. The only difference is, this time Hitler has a vagina, and he's from Alaska.

Yeah buddy.

We have only anecdotal evidence to support the idea that hitler did not, in fact, have a vagina. Can you see the resemblance?http://www.msnbc....t1=43001

Hitler was never popular with the people.

With the majority that is, which is why it would take hysteria fueled by incidents like the reichstag fire and the harassment of volksdeutsche elsewhere to convince germans to act. They were Played.

And it is enough to agree with others when it's obvious that all religions harbor the potential for unspeakable violence, and that there is NO way to ensure that they will not produce it.

That's what I don't buy. It might seem strange, particularly with me being a strong Atheist.

However, I question the mapping of unspeakable violence to religion. In my opinion, all HUMANS harbor that potential, quite regardless of religion.

Yes, religion can be used to whip up violence and oppression, and to create divisions between groups as the first step to dehumanizing the "enemy" and thus enabling and fueling atrocities. However, even in absence of religion, violence and oppression can be whipped up just as easily. All it takes is a talented demagogue, a desperate populace, and some means of drawing lines between "them" and "us".

For instance, take the French revolution. It was "the proletariat" vs. "the bourgeoisie": no religion involved. Ditto with the Russian revolution.

In my opinion, all HUMANS harbor that potential, quite regardless of religion.

I believe that, like any animal, humans can be expected to be peaceful and cooperative because it is in our best interests to be so. But when our backs are against the wall or our families are under threat we can be expected to fight like hell.

Our tropical repro rate has made overcrowding endemic and the resulting conflict inevitable. I believe that the protection against this has been codified into the prevailing religions, by guaranteeing that the people can be mobilized in orderly and directable ways. In this manner inevitable violence has been controlled so as not to endanger that which is truly vital and irreplacable.

We are in the process of controlling reproduction and thus eliminating this source of conflict. Religions possess an inertia which ensures their persistance long past their utility, with their violent tendencies intact and fully active. They are immune to controls on growth.

Our tropical repro rate has made overcrowding endemic and the resulting conflict inevitable.

And yet, you should notice that most of the modern tropical wars are fought along ethnic, rather than religious, lines. In fact, throughout history ethnicity, culture, and race were much more prominent motivators for organized conflict, than religion. Far more frequently than not, conflicts have occurred and still occur between peoples of the same religion, than peoples of different religions.

Religions possess an inertia which ensures their persistance long past their utility

True, religions do possess a tremendous inertia. But they have no built-in utility. Sure, sovereigns and other manipulators have been able to cherrypick and twist religions to their own ends, but rebels and reformists have been able to find motivation in those very same religions just as easily.

At the root of all, it's just Humans doing the Human thing, with religion merely providing a thin veneer on top.

In fact, throughout history ethnicity, culture, and race were much more prominent motivators for organized conflict, than religion.

Yes but religion made them controllable. Western culture survived, thrived, and spread in the context of religion-inspired war and revolution.

When Leaders reached the conclusion that they could Plan wars and prearrange the results, the potential for almost limitless gain- in tech, social change, and yes wealth and power- was obvious. The Idea became irresistible. And essential, as any other culture that reached the same conclusion would quickly overrun you.

More evidence? If one were to conceive social systems which would enable the people to hate an enemy on que and fight him to the death, support the effort to the point of starvation, and reproduce to outgrow the opposition and replace battle losses faster, one could not conceive of any better suited than the worlds major religions.

At the root of all, it's just Humans doing the Human thing, with religion merely providing a thin veneer on top.

The human thing was to engage in a few million years of tribal warfare. As we gradually got better at it, and learned to cultivate food, it soon became evident that humans could, and would inevitably, extinct themselves. Large areas throughout Asia and subsaharan Africa were denuded, desertified, saltified in ancient times. This is at the core of the Sumerian flood myth. Humans were a plague and needed to be flushed.

Religions cause humans to do markedly unhuman things- like monogamy for instance. There is little about organized religions which can in any way be considered natural, even in terms of superstition. They have been far more that a veneer- they have shaped the growth of society and enabled civilization to achieve what it never could without them- sustainable world domination. They are the most powerful Tool for domestication.

Domestication. 'Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.' 'To ensure domestic tranquility' -could it be any more obvious? 'The meek shall inheret the earth.' -A promise and a goal. The church obscured the fact that we are animals for so long, perhaps to distance us from the idea that we, too, could be an ongoing work of husbandry. Compelling the angry young upstarts to walk into the guns as bin laden and the Taliban are doing, separating the studious from their incipient cultures grouping them in universities to find mates, subjecting the weak and flawed to the ruinous temptation of drugs and alcohol. Etc. Baaaah. Wheat from chaff. A time to sow and a time to reap.

And religions- discerning who would believe the most outlandish lies, as they could be led most easily, and culling those who could not. Today we fill our prisons with them, enriching the next gen.

And as Frajo says, we ought to hunt down Nazis wherever they exist and crush them without pity.

When you wrote this you knew it is not true.How then can anyone trust your statements anymore?

Obviously I was exaggerating your sentiments for comedic effect. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be 'Frajo dislikes Nazis but begrudgingly acknowledges their right to exist' or 'to express their opinions under the 1st amendment and within all applicable laws' or similar?Just because I am obtuse sometimes does not mean I am untrustworthy. I am honest.

In the US nazis are allowed to stage parades so people can throw things at them. Thousands participate in ww2 reenactments where Nazis run through the woods with real guns and fake bullets. Americans grew up watching 'Hogans Heroes' a strange tv comedy written by Jews and starring at least 1 concentration camp survivor (lebeau).http://www.youtub...a_player

Americans for the most part view Nazis differently than euros do I think- possibly because they were being imported en masse under Operation Paperclip to head research and space programs? More like fiction. Not like commies.

Illeism is used with an air of grandeur, to give the speaker lofty airs. Idiosyncratic and conceited people are known to either use or are lampooned as using illeism to puff themselves up or illustrate their egoism.

I don't know of too many wars or revolutions that were religion-inspired. Most of them were inspired by power struggles between monarchs, ethnic (tribal) groups, or social classes (slave uprisings, labor revolutions.)

one could not conceive of any better suited than the worlds major religions

Oh, I don't know. Have you checked out North Korea, lately?

it soon became evident that humans could, and would inevitably, extinct themselves

I think not. Humans always assumed the earth and its resources were infinite, and there for the taking. The limited-resource view is a very modern phenomenon.

Humans were a plague and needed to be flushed

Again, I don't think so. Environmental disasters were never the direct fault of humans; they were the wrath of the gods. True connections were never made, due to a lack of proper perspective.

Religions cause humans to do markedly unhuman things- like monogamy for instance.

Sure, but how else can one demonstrate devotion to the god(s) if one is not in some way inconvenienced while doing so?

There is little about organized religions which can in any way be considered natural, even in terms of superstition.

I disagree about superstition. It is indeed VERY natural. Nobody TEACHES children that there are monsters under their beds, or hiding in dark closets.

Of course, the structures of organized religion are quite elaborate, but I don't see deliberate design there. Rather, I see evolution. The more efficient structures and features survived after millennia of innovation and competitive selection.

they have shaped the growth of society and enabled civilization to achieve what it never could without them- sustainable world domination

Religions are far older than technology. I attribute "sustainable world domination" to evolution of technology, not religion.

The church obscured the fact that we are animals for so long, perhaps to distance us from the idea that we, too, could be an ongoing work of husbandry.

Not every successful modern religion has done so. Buddhists and Hindus see humans reincarnating as animals and plants. African religions see ancestor spirits inhabiting animals. Most pagan religions see spirits inhabiting not just plants and animals, but inanimate/non-living objects like rocks and streams, as well as celestial entities.

Superstition is everywhere, even in the modern world, and even quite apart from any religion. Just look at baseball players, or Wall Street traders. Look at all the "folk wisdom", from black cats crossing paths, to whistling in the house, to looking into broken mirrors, etc.

Humans are deeply irrational and superstitious: it's our natural and universal, default state of being. Education has the ability to alter this, at least for some of us. But it's the least "natural" thing of all.

Illeism is used with an air of grandeur, to give the speaker lofty airs. Idiosyncratic and conceited people are known to either use or are lampooned as using illeism to puff themselves up or illustrate their egoism.

OR it could be referring to a nick character whose personality differs from ones own. OR it could be an indication of a schizoid mentality. OR it could be a more mundane expression of compulsive neurotic tendencies. OR it could be a feigned expression of a pseudoforeignism. Either/or, otto finds it amusing.

I don't know of too many wars or revolutions that were religion-inspired. Most of them were inspired by power struggles

Irrespective of underlying Motivations or shifting historical spin, it was religion which enabled protestants to burn their popish neighbors in their churches in the 30 yrs war, as 1 example.

It was religion which compelled crusaders to forsake their families and spend years ridding the holy lands of moslem infestation. These religions provided the impetus for people to fight people they would normally have had no issues with, just because their existance was an affront to the real god. The Knights Hospitaller for instance only fought as persistantly as they did because of their beliefs.

Religions enabled the conquest of distant lands. They were portable. This is why the specific methods of doing this are described in the OT. Identify a group, infuse them with gods will, send them off to empty a region and replace the culture with their own. Gleefully.

Ottoman moslems were similarly motivated, and between the 2 religionist forces the Mediterranean remained totally under control, and europes exposed flank protected, while the american invasion, which had been Planned for centuries, was prepared and executed.

Oh, I don't know. Have you checked out North Korea, lately?

We have been given more utile Methods of directing Constructive aggression. Communism can produce a Pol Pot and thoroughly ravage a region for a few years, and then completely evaporate. Quite a phenomenon.

Religions however tend to persist long after their usefulness is gone. They are an obsolete system of crowd control.

Religions are far older than technology. I attribute "sustainable world domination" to evolution of technology, not religion.

Technology began with tool and fire use. It probably preceded superstition, as it gave humans the free time to sit around and try to make themselves useful enough to earn their keep from the labor of others.

Superstition may be 'natural' and still be an indication of an innate flaw in our brains, something produced as a result of our forced intellectual evolution in the context of chronic overpopulation, brought about by the advent of technology. It may be natural to want to appease the river or the cave bear but I dont believe there is anything natural about the trinity.

One can regard todays religions as a process of distorted evolution and a happenstance result; but the specific forms of the modern mega-religions and the behaviors they can elicit, leads me to believe that they were concocted by People who only cared about only what you did in this life, not the next.

I think not. Humans always assumed the earth and its resources were infinite, and there for the taking.

Manifest Destiny, the philosophy of conquest. It has usually been different. Swidden farming is a practice of farming in one location until the soil is depleted, then moving on. As the quickly continents filled up this became harder to do without conflict.

History records the cyclic establishment of order followed by the depletion of local resources and collapse, in layered tells. Hammurabi? conceived a massive project to remove soil saltified by irrigation throughout the Euphrates vally, but abandoned it because it proved to daunting.

As I say, vast areas of the earth were ruined in ancient times. Leaders kept records of food distribution from communal farms. They could see over the gens how quickly pops could grow and what this does to the environment. They could easily surmise the bleak future of civilization without Action. This is Solomons lament in ecclesiastes.

The fourth crusade, e.g., was financed by whom? On what conditions? Destroyed which city? Massacred whom by whom?

You should spend more time reading history books than watching movies, TV, and comic strips.

And you should spend more time thinking about what you read. Ive read history. I know history. And I know, like many people do, that written history is inescapably political and therefore propagandist in nature. The best evidence for this is how we can see history being revised and retold to suit changing times.

as most wars in history - means for economical ends.

Wealth? What good is money when the society which legitimizes it is collapsing around you?

It is so easy to fall for the argument that greed is the prime motivator of conflict, so difficult to consider that wars might actually be fought to preserve or create order, isnt it? Your conspiracy theory is somewhat distasteful. I prefer to assume that Leaders might be fighting to preserve, not destroy.

Environmental disasters were never the direct fault of humans; they were the wrath of the gods.

It is in their legends:

Fragment #3 --Scholiast on Homer, Il. i. 5:`There was a time when the countless tribes of men, though wide-dispersed, oppressed the surface of the deep-bosomed earth, andZeus saw it and had pity and in his wise heart resolved torelieve the all-nurturing earth of men by causing the greatstruggle of the Ilian war, that the load of death might empty theworld. And so the heroes were slain in Troy, and the plan ofZeus came to pass.'

-One of my favorites. Many more examples.

True connections were never made, due to a lack of proper perspective.

Yes they were, by Leaders, who could therefore predict calamity and blame it on the gods or on the peoples infidelity. A great example of this is the story of joseph and pharoah. The ancients kept meticulous census records of which we have many examples.

Of course, the structures of organized religion are quite elaborate, but I don't see deliberate design there.

One of the great innovations of the judeo/xian/moslem religions was their holy book, which is the indisputable word of god. Priests carrying them could maintain their authority because only they could read from it at first and thus were their only source for gods intent.

Later, the people themselves could keep gods presence on the mantlepiece as a constant reminder of their cultural identity as separate from, and superior to, indigenes when living on the frontier. They still had to rely on a priests or imams interpretation, but they could see where the words came from and repeat them to themselves.

Holy books introduced people to literacy, a primary component of modern culture and the replacement of instruction and leadership by clerics with that of secular Authority. Holy books were a major factor in the spread of cohesion throughout the world.

I disagree about superstition. It is indeed VERY natural. Nobody TEACHES children that there are monsters under their beds, or hiding in dark closets.

Fear of the nonexistant misdirects the attention of individuals and provides unneeded stress. It cannot be a survival mechanism as it wastes resources and divorces people from their environment. Looks like a flaw to me. You dont see dogs barking at empty closets unless theres a poltergeist in there. =O

Superstition is everywhere, even in the modern world, and even quite apart from any religion. Just look at baseball players, or Wall Street traders. Look at all the "folk wisdom", from black cats crossing paths, to whistling in the house, to looking into broken mirrors, etc.

Do you think any of these actually produce results other than allaying fear perhaps and helping concentration? Do you think that, without this bizarre tendency humans, like the other animals, might have more logical ways of improving their performance?

The fourth crusade, e.g., was financed by whom? On what conditions? Destroyed which city? Massacred whom by whom?

I suppose you read something like this and concluded it was about money?

"Nevertheless, the Pope's negative reaction was short-lived. When the crusaders took the piles of money, jewels, and gold that they had captured in the sack of Constantinople back to Rome, Innocent III welcomed the stolen items and agreed to let the crusaders back into the Church."

STRATEGICALLY, from a wide enough perspective, we can see that the most substantial thing to occur during this pperiod was the american invasion. This could only have occured if the mediterranean could be secured from disruption from indigenes as it was during the grecian dark age by the sea peoples.

The Authorities to establish order here were the moslems and xians. by constantly threatening one another they were both able to maintain formidable forces that no 3rd party could hope to challenge.cont

They both constantly raided the shores for supplies and slaves and they occupied and fought over all the islands.

Islamic arabs had quickly destroyed all cultures alond the southern and eastern shores, establishing a vast area which the turks inhereted. They were the replacement for the eastern empire, which had served a similar purpose while europe was subjugated by rome and charlemagne.

The eastern empire was no longer strategically tenable- its Purpose was assumed by the ottomans. Constantinople was traded for spain, which was obviously the most strategically-located region from which to launch the american invasion, and begin to recover all the extremely dangerous precious metals which, had they found their way to europe through independent trade, would have ruined euro economies there. The crusades can be seen as, among other things, a dry run to develop tactics and tech and experience needed for the invasion of the western hemisphere.

Yes this is (mostly) my own interpretation of events but I think it happens to make a lot more sense of this era than the official storyline does. And I have so far found no flaws in it. You see any you would like to post?

The idea that europe didnt know about the americas is ludicrous, and so is the idea that trade wouldnt occur or that americans wouldnt quickly acquire the tech they needed to present a dire threat to the world. If we assume world Leaders knew this, we can assume They may have wanted to do something about it, and that this Effort may have taken many gens of political and social preparation including the development of weapons, transport, and tactics by the people who were going to use them, and the strategic protection of those people while these preparations were underway.

Moslems swept asia clear of incipient cultures and strangly stopped at the doorsteps of the moslem and euro empires. Can we assume this was coordinated by diplomats such as marco polo?

The point IS, that the judeo/xian/moslem religions made all of this possible, by being able to cause specific groups of people to move and fight at specific times in the absence of the traditional motivation of competition over resources. These religions, in their forms at the time, were essential for these events to occur.

Jesus effin' Christ, otto... How do you expect anyone to cope with such a barrage?

Fear of the nonexistant misdirects the attention of individuals and provides unneeded stress. It cannot be a survival mechanism as it wastes resources and divorces people from their environment. Looks like a flaw to me.

I could write an essay just on this topic alone.

Firstly, fear of the unknown and of danger lurking in dark places, is a natural and beneficial instinct for any animal that evolved under condition of predation by stealthy night-predators. All the large felines, canines, and crocodilians of Africa more than justify such a built-in survival mechanism. Children in particular are most vulnerable to such predators, and so they in particular manifest acute fears of the dark and the sense of being watched or stalked by unknown malevolent entities. Such fears heighten attention and reactions, and discourage any wandering away from protective shelter and/or company of others.

This isn't just a human idiosyncrasy, either. Most animals -- even down to fish -- who are not top predators, feature similar built-in behavioral biases.

Secondly, humans are nothing without their brains. And the single most salient feature of cognition in general, but human cognition in particular, is the proclivity for identification of patterns. We are all hyper-active pattern-finding machines, and in our drive to cognitively impose order upon our environment we are apt to conjure up patterns where none actually exist in an objective sense. This is not a flaw per se; it is a negative side-effect of an otherwise overwhelmingly adaptive feature.

Not only are we geared for patterns, but we're also intensely social. We have an inborn (literally) presumption of "other minds". We naturally and effortlessly model and comprehend the behaviors of other people around us, because we instinctively map our own consciousness upon them.

This instinctual mapping of our own consciousness upon other humans is however not very specific at the outset. You can see children attribute minds to inanimate dolls, to animals, to plants, to natural phenomena. And this is not altogether maladaptive, because many animals are indeed quite intelligent, and do have minds -- not quite as sophisticated as human minds, but minds nonetheless. When hunting for prey, or trying to elude predators, or trying to understand the behaviors and motivations of animals so as to avoid unnecessary danger, or to take advantage of opportunities for beneficial coexistence: in all these cases it is useful to model animals as intelligent beings. Of course, oftentimes we go overboard in humanizing them, but in most cases it's far less detrimental to overestimate animal intelligence than to underestimate it.

Now take our instinctive presumption that everything around us manifests a mind, and combine it with our rampant pattern-building propensity.

Combine these with yet other features of the human cognitive experience: dreams, hallucinations (due to food poisoning, diseases, pathologies, etc.), the mysteries of birth and death.

Here you have all the necessary ingredients to build not just superstitions but outright religions. Thus, I posit that both superstition and religion are a natural and inevitable, default state of human mind, absent advanced civilization. Take any group of modern toddlers, strand them on an isolated island, and provided any of them survive, I can guarantee you that the very first generation of such a population will have invented from scratch a religion of its own.

This is why I posit that religion must predate technology. Our ancestors were religious long before the invention of fire, and long before the invention of stone tools. The anatomical prerequisites and cognitive sophistication necessary for technological development, must pass a much higher bar than for emergence of religion.

On the scale of cognitive sophistication, I view religion as a pretty much unavoidable intermediate step on the path toward advanced intelligence. It is, in a sense, a kind of childhood for the civilization as a whole: a necessary developmental stage that must be completed before graduation into adulthood. Are we as a collective mass of humanity, physiologically, ready to graduate right now? I have serious doubts. I think we're still quite hopelessly mired in preteen angst.

Apropos, let's touch upon your analysis of history... I am going to accuse you of falling prey to the same dynamics that ensnare the religious: you see patterns and a grand design where there are none, you impose your modern knowledge, perspective, and 20-20 hindsight (never mind your Euro-centric cultural context) onto ancient peoples, you ignore cognitively dissonant evidence that contradicts your thesis, and you dismiss plausible alternative explanations out of hand. To be rational, one must be objective.

This isn't just a human idiosyncrasy, either. Most animals -- even down to fish -- who are not top predators, feature similar built-in behavioral biases.

Well of course I know this. I think there is a big difference in avoiding potential danger and being frightened of things which don't exist. I dont believe animals walk around feeling scared a lot. Caution as opposed to fear. It could be an exaggerated response in humans, or it could be a debilitating aberration.

This instinctual mapping of our own consciousness upon other humans is however not very specific at the outset. You can see children attribute minds to inanimate dolls, to animals, to plants, to natural phenomena. And this is not altogether maladaptive

More indication I think of brains pushed to adapt well beyond their capacity to do so, and the problems this typically causes.

Here you have all the necessary ingredients to build not just superstitions but outright religions.

Certainly. And this inevitability has frequently been used to lead the tribe. The chief and the witch doctor work together. And together they can decide what form the religion can take to best lead the people.

I can guarantee you that the very first generation of such a population will have invented from scratch a religion of its own

-Which was theme of 'Lord of the Flies'. Fear of 'the beast' allowed one boy who wanted to be leader to use it to grab power. He created a religion to attain leadership.

This is why I posit that religion must predate technology. Our ancestors were religious long before the invention of fire, and long before the invention of stone tools.

Apropos, let's touch upon your analysis of history... I am going to accuse you of falling prey to the same dynamics that ensnare the religious: you see patterns and a grand design where there are none

-And you're reciting from the 'Defame a Crackpot' handbook. You're reaching conclusions here based on your preconceptions of what I must be, instead of arguing against what I have presented. You showed some promise PE, but you failed.

Wiki says that the first indications of religion date to perhaps 300k years ago, while stone tools date to 2.5M yrs. I think technology which allowed protohumans to defeat their natural enemies created chronic competition and tribal warfare, which forced these oversized organs in our heads to grow. I think that they were pushed beyond reasonable limits, and bizarre behaviors, including the insanity of superstition, were the result.

You're reaching conclusions here based on your preconceptions of what I must be

I presume nothing; for all I know you're just trolling. However, just in case you're not, I merely asked you to take a good look at yourself in the mirror.

I was discussing euro history, and you're discerning a pattern?

You postulated a multi-century pan-European conspiracy to conquer the Americas (which were apparently long-since charted both in terms of location and landmass extent, as well as natives and resources), which involved dramatic transformation of the entire Middle East through deliberate spawning of a new Abrahamic religion as a mortal enemy of the dominant religion in Europe. By any measure, that is a panoply of extraordinary claims; I have yet to see any extraordinary evidence for any of them. All you have so far, is a few carefully chosen incidents and cultural snippets, while having thoroughly ignored the bulk of the historical context. Never mind total lack of plausibility.

If you really have studied history, you wouldn't be committing the rookie mistake of inchoate religion-bashers, with such a myopic focus on the Crusades or Christian inter-sect squabbles.

You would recall that wars were fought constantly over land, titles, and control of trading routes. You wouldn't have forgotten the truly epic military adventures of antiquity, such as the Hun invasion, or Alexander's little spree across Eurasia.

And as for the Crusades, you can't possibly believe in all honesty that religion is what motivated the European hordes. The bulk of them were either conscripted by their rulers, or enlisted because they were promised the rights to rape and pillage as they went. As for the Kings that led those escapades, they weren't after some insidious population-culling scheme -- by which they'd be weakening their own kingdoms. They were vainglorious megalomaniacs, and wanted to leave their indelible mark upon history.

the first indications of religion date to perhaps 300k years ago, while stone tools date to 2.5M yrs

That's because religion doesn't fossilize very well. The "indications" consist of technological artifacts, so of course you won't see those until the corresponding technology shows up.

But that's beside the point. The point is that superstition is not something that is totally absent initially, and then somehow magically gets invented. It is an inherent function of human cognition, and as cognition develops and becomes more sophisticated (thus enabling more elaborate technology), so do superstitions develop in complexity and scope until they become full-blown abstract religious frameworks.

Sure, you probably couldn't have really sophisticated religions until the capacity for language fully emerged. However, you can easily develop primitive superstitions and rituals in total absence of language.

I dont believe animals walk around feeling scared a lot. Caution as opposed to fear.

Adult animals, yes, for the most part. But try to separate a baby from its parent (for those species that rear their young), and see how the baby behaves. It's going to look a lot more like fear than caution.

Humans have developed long-term memories with a capacity to narrate past experiences. Arguably, this is indispensable for achievement of high intelligence. But it allows us to carry forward into adulthood the impressions and superstitions of childhood. Rituals and habits, once acquired, become self-perpetuating.

technology which allowed protohumans to defeat their natural enemies

Until very recently, the "defeat" wasn't exactly all that resounding. Hunting was a high-risk sport, and hunter-gatherers never really came close to depleting the resources of their environs. Since then, the human brain hasn't changed much, despite the advent of agriculture and other hi-tech inventions.

You would recall that wars were fought constantly over land, titles, and control of trading routes.

Most all Engineered by Agreement.

You wouldn't have forgotten the truly epic military adventures of antiquity, such as the Hun invasion,

Mercenaries meant to drive Germanic peoples westward.

or Alexander's little spree across Eurasia

Alexanders campaign is central to my argument, and I've talked about it before. The most blatant example of Contrivance in the historical record. Persians and Macedonians conspired to solve their mutual problems and consolidate the known world. Alexander spent years educating ang grooming key Players for the Task. Brilliance.

They were vainglorious megalomaniacs, and wanted to leave their indelible mark upon history.

Poop. You too have swallowed the official storyline for the masses, which makes no sense when you think about it for very long.

If you really have studied history, you wouldn't be committing the rookie mistake of inchoate religion-bashers

Look PE, all I can do is expound on these theories from time to time when appropriate. Some will offer constructive criticism and some will just take the opportunity to show off their troll-bashing skills, like yourself. Either way, otto gets practice and learns something. Win-win.

People who have followed my posts in depth do begin to get the idea that I know a great deal about history and might be on to something.

That's because religion doesn't fossilize very well.

Educate yourself:http://en.wikiped...religion-What scholars consider evidence for religion 'fossilizes' better than wooden tools. Apes use tools in the same ways as early man did, but they aren't particularly superstitious. And to this you're going to argue that 'apes are indeed superstitious because their babies get scared and blahblah.

Doesn't mean it isn't an expression of a flaw. Animals don't invent imaginary explanations for real threats. It would get them killed.

Until very recently, the "defeat" wasn't exactly all that resounding

Proto-humans lived more or less in balance with the environment like any animal. AS SOON AS they became able to hunt their predators, their numbers could explode. At that point other humans became the main attritive element. Competition over resources fueled conflict. Starvation and disease followed.

Hunting was a high-risk sport

Hunting animals is easy. All carnivores do it. Animals are predictable. Humans are not, and hunting them even as they are hunting you is what drove the expansion of the intellect.

Again, apes fight wars- they ambush other groups, steal females, cannibalize, etc. Our tool use would only have exacerbated this behavior. Those who were better at it would have survived and thrived.

I meant Aristotle- As Alexander was only early 20s he simply lacked the experience to be a brilliant commander. The morning of the battle of gaugamela he slept late. Walking out of his tent and surveying the battlefield he said 'Darius has done exactly as I expected him to.' Of course he did. The kings were both privy to the Plan.

-Just one of dozens of factoids which lead me to believe that the whole Campaign was fought by Leaders on both sides against their own people, who were the real enemies of civilization. Just because they happened to be a tropical species running rampant in a temperate environment.

-A nice little essay summing up pretty much all of what I've been saying about warfare and it's effects on the evolution of our brains. It's a brief summation of the opinions of people like Darwin, Spencer, and many others more current, agreeing with essentiallybeverything I've said.

It is only a small leap to conclude that this decidedly unnatural environment created a delicate thinking machine that was prone to damage and flaws, and that large segments of the population suffer from imperfections of varied severity, which have not had the time nor the selective influences necessary to weed them out of the structure.

In short, we are all most likely born flawed to some degree and much of our irrational behavior can be attributed to this tendency. Before you 1/1 me, know that I will continue to research and will most likely turn up corroboration of this.

We can ALSO conclude from the essay I posted, that since war has been constant enough to actually drive our evolution, that it can also be regarded as INEVITABLE, for all the reasons stated by the experts therein, up until perhaps the present. What has changed?

For the first time we have a worldwide culture which can offer meaningful alternatives to what used to be the singular most important and rewarding pursuit in life: reproduction. And we also have the ability to preempt conception and birth on an industrial scale.

War could never be prevented. It could be postponed through negotiation of course, but this would only make it worse once it did happen. And because of record-keeping, ancient Leaders desperate for a Solution had to have understood the cause of it. Just because Malthus may have been the first to spell it out in the 1800s doesnt mean it was not well-known throughout history. And as I have pointed out, it is alluded to in legend and the holy books.cont-

War has always been the most dire threat to civilization, and Leaders knew that it absolutely could not be avoided. And so They must have begun looking for ways of managing war besides just postponing it until the next generation.

Ancient Leaders knew that the only real chance they would get for immortality was through their offspring, and like us wanted to provide a secure future for them. They began to come up with ways that war could be Managed, Engineered, Contained. Why? Because humans are Planners. Their defining trait is to anticipate the future and to prepare for it.

This was undoubtably an easy sell to neighboring leaders who were struggling with the exact same problems. A new meme was spread diplomatically among tribal leaders far and wide. They began to intermarry and soon became a Tribe unto themselves, with their own Traditions and Beliefs. They came to regard the people as the enemy of Order, and began to make war upon them by pitting them against one another.

War has always been the most dire threat to civilization, and Leaders knew that it absolutely could not be avoided. And so They must have begun looking for ways of managing war besides just postponing it until the next generation.

Ancient Leaders knew that the only real chance they would get for immortality was through their offspring, and like us wanted to provide a secure future for them. They began to come up with ways that war could be Managed. Why? Because humans are Planners. Our defining trait is to anticipate the future and to prepare for it.

This was undoubtably an easy sell to neighboring leaders who were struggling with the exact same problems. A new meme was spread diplomatically among tribal leaders far and wide. They began to intermarry and soon became a Tribe unto themselves, with their own Traditions and Beliefs. They came to regard the people as the enemy of Order, and began to make war upon them by pitting them against one another in Controllable ways.

War has always been the most dire threat to civilization, and Leaders knew that it absolutely could not be avoided. And so They must have begun looking for ways of managing war besides just postponing it until the next generation.

War is only inevitable if you aren't a human being. War is the pre-primate response to primate planning exercises showing a resource problem. To go to war is to give in to primalism.

War has always been the most dire threat to civilization, and Leaders knew that it absolutely could not be avoided. And so They must have begun looking for ways of managing war besides just postponing it until the next generation.

War is only inevitable if you aren't a human being. War is the pre-primate response to primate planning exercises showing a resource problem. To go to war is to give in to primalism.

Hmmm. Did you read the article I posted SH?? Thats NOT what the experts say. Like I say, war has always been inevitable and unavoidable, up until the present.

Hmmm. Did you read the article I posted SH?? Thats NOT what the experts say. Like I say, war has always been inevitable and unavoidable, up until the present.

One man's expert is another man's fool in matters of defining war, let alone predicting the potentials of armed conflict. That is the issue with essays. They are an opinion piece supported by some fact, but not necessarily all the facts.

Indeed. The paper approaches the subject of war from an evolutionary perspective, that being the idea that our brains were shaped and sized in the context of a few million years of conflict. Evolutionary psychology does seem to be the prevailing school in s number of disciplines, having displaced unscientific speculation in sociology, anthropology, philosophy, etc.

Which is what I've been discussing here and taking flak for it. It is a valid perspective from respected scientists with names like darwin and huxley and lorenz et al that I've posted to support my views. It is an overview of the PREVAILING theory of the origin of war, not just some opinion piece. But I guess you'd actually have to read it first to know that. And I see already some dog named dick has showed up like lassie to obediently 1 me.

The paper approaches the subject of war from an evolutionary perspective, that being the idea that our brains were shaped and sized in the context of a few million years of conflict.

And that's the problem. We've found that all primates, including homo sapiens tend to avoid conflict and in most cases prefer cooperation.

Assuming tribal warfare was the norm has been seen as faulty when compared to the prehistoric record. It wasn't until we became a predominantly urban culture, or were faced with undue hardship that we become agressive and warlike. You're ignoring all that which has given us a competitive edge over nature and other animals. Cooperation is our norm.

Human society is mirrored by pigs. When left to their own devices they build a bower, raise young, visit each other, play socially, work together...

When penned in and stuffed next to their neighbors shoulder to shoulder, the weak are killed or starved to death and then eaten by the dominant. Sound familiar?

And that's the problem. We've found that all primates, including homo sapiens tend to avoid conflict and in most cases prefer cooperation.

We? According to my excellent sources, many of which are listed in the paper I posted, and of course my own learned opinion, the complex interplay of intragroup cooperation and intergroup competition caused the human brain to quickly triple in size.

Other groups were typically seen as different species, and when in competition, would be hunted like any other animal. We can observe this sort of behavior to a degree in inner-city gangs today. It explains both the savagery of conflict and the solidarity and altruism within the group. Please read the paper so we have something to discuss, rather than repeating the 'Im a good guy because I talk like one' stuff which plays well in your own little gang here. Sir and madam.

I don't like your misuse of the term "nazi". You are devaluating a term which ought to keep its strength of disapproval.

And please inform others within your group of the distinction whenever it comes up or is directed at renegades like otto for no good reason other than to enhance group solidarity, ok?

The intragroup/intergroup behavior which made us human can also explain the Nazi phenomenon. Leaders have through the ages developed effective methods of expanding the group identity to cover ever larger populations.

Nationalism is the tribe, artificially grown to maximum size. It can be considered in this condition a form of domestication as it relies on technology and social systems such as religion to maintain, and is unsustainable without these.

otto1932

And that's the problem. We've found that all primates, including homo sapiens tend to avoid conflict and in most cases prefer cooperation.

Assuming tribal warfare was the norm has been seen as faulty when compared to the prehistoric record. It wasn't until we became a predominantly urban culture, or were faced with undue hardship that we become agressive and warlike. You're ignoring all that which has given us a competitive edge over nature and other animals. Cooperation is our norm.

Human society is mirrored by pigs. When left to their own devices they build a bower, raise young, visit each other, play socially, work together...

When penned in and stuffed next to their neighbors shoulder to shoulder, the weak are killed or starved to death and then eaten by the dominant. Sound familiar?

There was plenty of conflict between Native American tribes and they weren't urbanized.

Assuming tribal warfare was the norm has been seen as faulty when compared to the prehistoric record. It wasn't until we became a predominantly urban culture, or were faced with undue hardship that we become agressive and warlike. You're ignoring all that which has given us a competitive edge over nature and other animals. Cooperation is our norm.

Well I know this isn't true as even a cursory examination of aboriginal cultures can show. You got a source SH?

Human society is mirrored by pigs. When left to their own devices they build a bower, raise young, visit each other, play socially, work together...

-In the 2nd link, something curious from the 1st archeological record of a battle:"Nearly half of the bodies are female, and this fact also causes some to question the argument for large-scale warfare."

-It could indicate however, an attempt to limit pop growth by reducing female numbers; or, as I mentioned earlier, evidence of selection for the hymen, which a caste-based culture would regard as the only sure indication of fidelity.

Assuming tribal warfare was the norm has been seen as faulty when compared to the prehistoric record.

-because if its true, I would really like to know. Because all I can find is stuff like this:

Did you read those articles? I saw plenty of evidence to support that statement. Read the article on Endemic warfare, it is a ritualized battle that reduces wounds and death rates, a chance to prove your manliness or virility, competition for females and tribal leadership. The Prehistory article also covers Endemic warfare but states that there is no evidence that conflict appears until after development of ranged weapons. Close combat was too risky because of small population numbers, which also suggests that females would be treasured not slaughtered. Most likely reason for female death is stated in the article, trespassing and I would also suggest runaways.

Ranged combat is FAR more risky for all involved. Close quarters combat, with or without weapons is almost always VERY one sided and short. The guy that has a lot of skill with his weapon, or is simply stronger wins...unless he gets really unlucky.

Ranged combat, (especially with firearms) equalized this somewhat and actually SPREAD OUT the risk of combat. If they sold pre-historic conflict insurance the rates would have skyrocketed when bows and arrows were developed.

"Endemic warfare is the state of continual, low-threshold warfare [with]in a tribal warrior society."

But:

"Communal societies are well capable of escalation to all-out wars of annihilation between tribes."

And:

"A fundamental difference between wars enacted within the same tribe and against neighboring tribes is such that "wars between different tribes are in principle wars of extermination"."

-The article is written poorly. By this last quote you can see that they meant INTRA-tribal; which is why I added the 'with' to 'in'. Endemic warfare is meant to maintain a warrior class and culture if and when intertribal warfare is necessary.cont-

"Among tribal societies engaging in endemic warfare, conflict may escalate to actual warfare every generation or so, for various reasons such as population pressure or conflict over resources, but also for no readily understandable reason."

-Wars among greek city-states for instance remained largely endemic for 600 years. Although there was much bloodshed, these conflicts were ritualized and meant to resolve specific disputes. They were arranged by oracles and the outcomes most likely predetermined.

The peloponnesian conflict was, however, completely different. Athens and Sparta dispensed with honor and protocol and were intent on destroying each other. What followed shortly thereafter was the alexandrian conquest, and I believe the peloponnesian wars were meant to prepare greece for this change of scale.cont-

"Of the tribal societies still in existence today, some lead lives of great violence, frequently raiding neighboring groups and seizing territory, women, and goods from others by force. Other groups, such as the Bushmen of the Kalahari, live in societies with no warfare and very little murder"

and

"Beginning around 12,000 BC, combat was transformed by the development of bows, maces, and slings. The bow seems to have been the most important weapon in the development of early warfare, in that it enabled attacks to be launched with far less risk to the attacker when compared to the risk involved in the use of mêlée combat weaponry."

As I always say for every stereotype there are the exceptions it is the nature of everything. However there is a period between the paleolithic and the upper paleolithic where cooperation or at least avoidance was preferred over conflict.

"In the earliest hunter-gatherer societies of Homo erectus, population density was low enough to avoid all armed conflict."

-One could say the same thing about chimp populations for a given region, and yet there is frequent warfare among chimp tribes, as attested to in the first article I posted:http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-Primate warfare is well-documented and there is no reason to think that early tool-users were not that much better at it, because:

"The development of the throwing spear, together with ambush hunting techniques, made potential violence between groups very costly"

Darwin noted the evolutionary potential of war:

"In The Descent of Man, Darwin explicitly suggested that warfare had been at one time an agent in human evolution. He observed that prehistoric humans as well as contemporary 'savage' societies were constantly at war with each other."cont-

As I always say for every stereotype there are the exceptions it is the nature of everything. However there is a period between the paleolithic and the upper paleolithic where cooperation or at least avoidance was preferred over conflict.

According to the wiki article but I am in the middle of proving that wrong.

Im offering in evidence:1. The behaviors of similar primates;2. The unnaturally oversized and unsustainable state of the human brain; and3. The opinions of experts in the rechten article that this state is due to the unique nature of conflict to select for both intra-tribal cooperation and inter-tribal superiority in combat.

Together with killing off inferior competitors and then impregnating their females, this would have resulted in the creature we refer today as human.

This statement:

"This period of "Paleolithic warlessness" persisted until well after the appearance of Homo sapiens some 0.2 million years ago"

-Seems to me a gross assumption as there is only the absense of evidence to support it and a great deal of circumstantial against it. Proto-humans would quickly have filled up their niches and like other primates would have come into conflict over resources, like any other animal, and according to those cited in the rechten article.

"Beginning around 12,000 BC, combat was transformed by the development of bows, maces, and slings. The bow seems to have been the most important weapon in the development of early warfare."

-I think the author is showing a lack of knowledge of war here. The article states how thrown spears would have changed the nature of conflict but then states that war didnt begin until bows were invented. They assume tribes would pack up and head north into inhospitable territory rather than stand and fight for their territory like any other animal.

Tribal warfare and hunting are indistinguishable. They involve stalking and ambushing unwary prey. Hunters became ad hoc warriors depending on what they encountered in the field, but usually on what they planned to pursue. Planning won battles and selected for brains.

Spears and rocks and deadfalls and fire were apparently used to eliminate most of the megafauna in the pleistocene. They would have been equally effective against enemy tribes.

Ranged combat is FAR more risky for all involved. Close quarters combat, with or without weapons is almost always VERY one sided and short. The guy that has a lot of skill with his weapon, or is simply stronger wins...unless he gets really unlucky.

Ranged combat, (especially with firearms) equalized this somewhat and actually SPREAD OUT the risk of combat. If they sold pre-historic conflict insurance the rates would have skyrocketed when bows and arrows were developed.

Well that's not true at all. Maybe it holds true for gunpoweder weapons but bladed weapons brought with them the massive risk of infection. Modern hand to hand is a you die or win, prehistoric hand to hand was you die now, I probably die later from my wounds.

Yes, it was I and I do apologize for it as I didn't check the date of the last post. Honestly it is a simple matter of walk away if you don't like it, no need to get into a tizzy about it. I simply found it amusing that otto would use an article that supports someone else argument in an attempt to support his own argument. Then it was amusing to find him going off on a large tyraid about how the article was wrong, which it is to some degrees, however still amusing. Yes Chips fight and have conflict, congratulations everyone and I guess myself as well for my first accidental trolling.

Honestly it is a simple matter of walk away if you don't like it, no need to get into a tizzy about it. I simply found it amusing that otto would use an article that supports someone else argument in an attempt to support his own argument. Then it was amusing to find him going off on a large tirade about how the article was wrong, which it is to some degrees, however still amusing. Yes Chips fight and have conflict, congratulations everyone and I guess myself as well for my first accidental trolling.

And it's amusing to see that you misread it because of your irrational preconceptions, and you misread my explanations for the same reasons. Thanks for the revivification- it gave otto the chance to win decisively and unequivocally. As usual.

And chips have motorcycles and aviator glasses and names like 'Paunch'. Conflict and hot babes is what kept their ratings up.

I am appalled that you would even have a clue about the show as I am pretty sure you are too young to have run across it in its original showings. Fortunately for me I never saw it except while passing on to the the next channel. Back when TVs had DIALS to change stations. Rotating cylinders with a LOT of contacts and brushes to make the contacts. Until they started to wear out.

No I did NOT have to walk to school in the snow. It doesn't snow in Southern California. I didn't have to lick the road clean with my tongue either.

Boy that word has strange spelling, tung(the reasonable as opposed to correct way) that is. I keep typing tounge and the spell check keeps complaining.

Of course we have the REAL California Highway Patrol where I live not that bunch. They mostly drive cars. Even then.

No yes yes yes. The Ann sothern show, the original I love Lucy, and Imogene coca with Sid Caesar? And still my brain is pliable enough to embrace the magnificance that is black metal. That's why those who perform it wear corpse paint- they're OLD.

No I never saw it. I recall liking Ann Southern and I have never been a Lucy fan. However she was pretty hot when she was making B movies. The rest yes. Mr. Lucky was based on a Cary Grant movie.

it's not safe there for a # of reasons

Just because there were 6 police cars here a few months ago.

Minnesota is cold. Then again I kind of liked Flagstaff the first time I was there which is cold in the winter. The second time I was on a bike in the snow, well slush that turned to ice when I tried to get to Phoenix. Motorcycles and snow are not something I can recommend. Ice is really a bad idea.

corpse paint- they're OLD.

Are you referring to KISS? Brain rot. I prefer classical but I also like hard and ... Oh to heck with it, generally I like bands with chicks. Girls look better prancing about on stage. Just no bleeping POP, as that is often worse rot than Country. Britny Spears singing Joan Jett the horror.

KISS? NO.black metal is for people who are sick and tired of all the rock they've ever heard, but still love rock. Wide and varied subgenre of extreme metal. Everything distorted including the vocals. Much shrieking and wailing. DARK, empty, foreboding, full of anger and despair. Cold and cloudy is beautiful. You won't like it. http://www.youtub...a_player

-Animosity toward religion is only coincidental. Burzum is the king of one particular offshoot- monotonous, droning, mysterious, subtle. I think it's magnificent. The song is typical, not the best by far.

I dont know if its possible to make a good black metal video. Ive never seen one except for the live stuff. I dont think it translates well into visual. As usual the music transcends the people who make it. This ones my favorite:http://www.youtub...syOzpSJU